President Trump

Thank you!
I'll be sure to let it be known around here once she's a citizen. We'll have to have a party around here or something.
I didn't find you confrontational. You stated your points, made your position known and were considerate of my feelings.
That's why I stated in my first post that I don't expect anyone not in our situation to really understand.
No, I appreciate your intelligence and candor in this matter.

Well as a Trump supporter so far I have no regrets on the job that Trumps doing so far, and having a brother who is currently severing in the military and is about to be deployed over seas it's comforting to have a president who is working to strengthen America's armed forces once again.

Oh, and not to mention that the Stock Markets are doing pretty good under Trumps presidency and I've been investing in the Stock Markets for several years now, so that's just an added bonus to Trump becoming president .

__________________
Catwoman: Life's a b!tch, now so am I

It hit new heights under Obama, too. Ergo...Obama was good for the economy? Do you believe that?

I'm not a fan of either, so don't take that as a defense of Obama. It's just remarkable how many of these talking points are demonstrably incompatible with criticism of the previous administration.

This is exactly why I get sick of hearing people defend Trump with "But Obama did this", "Hillary did that" and so on and so on.


A president should be judged on his own merits and NOT as some comparison piece to a previous president.


If you ever look at an article on Yahoo it's always the same things:


- "You Libtards! Go cry to Obama!"
-"Obama did this and this."
-"Hillary was all about this."
-"Snowflake!"


You can't engage in a civilized discussion with people like that.

What bothers me is when people feel no need for what they're saying now to align with what they said before. I mean, geez, at least rationalize it by pointing out some flimsy, arbitrary distinction between the two, like a normal person.

I've seen "police shootings" to mean police shot with a firearm and also others shot by a police officer, so maybe I'm misinterpreting this. But just in case you mean police shot with a firearm: regardless if you believe BLM is responsible, do you have any evidence that there even is a rash of police shootings?

I did a quick look at 2017 to date, and police fatalities by shootings are down compared to 2016's pace: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/

BLM got started in ~2013 IIRC, so lets look at some data: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-...ww.google.com/

The average number of police fatalities by firearm from the 3 years "before" BLM (which I'll roundly say is 2010,11, and 12) was 61. The average number of police fatalities in the 3 years "after" BLM (2013, 14, and 15 [It looks like the 2016 data isn't incorporated yet]) is 41.

Edit: I found some other sources for 2016's data. And if you bring in 2016's total (64) the average would still be much lower, ~47. 2016 is also below the peaks of 2007 (70) and 2011 (73).

But if you mean police shootings as in, police shooting civilians, that's a different set of statistics. Though I'd be very hard pressed to blame shot civilians on BLM.

I'm also very disappointed to see BLM being compared to the KKK elsewhere. Even using the Black Panthers as an analogy to the KKK would be a stretch.

I don't think BLM is responsible for police shooting with firearms, but the reason I asked is because I also don't think Trump is responsible for people jumping back into the KKK. My point is that political rhetoric or even policy is not responsible for bringing out the worst in our society unless policy is governing that way. Ramping up our illegal immigration policies is a long way away from lynchings and segregation. Just as protesting because we want better policing is a long way from gunning down officers.

Ironically I'm not a Trump or BLM fan, although it appearsI'm taking up the mantle of both.

__________________
Letterboxd

It is undeniable that people are now coming out of the woodwork all over the country and acting like racist attitudes and overtly politically incorrect behaviors are "ok". This whole debacle over the forthcoming "Dear White People" Netflix show would have never happened while Obama was at the height of his presidency. Breitbart and other alt-right media sites/groups have grown wildly ever since Trump became a possibility for President.

__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

Is it undeniable. I live in the south surrounded by Trump supporters, by people I fundamentally disagree with and don't see any blatant racism, or KKK activity, or picketing at the mosque in our po-dunk town. Help me out because it seems like both sides are cherry picking horrible events and painting people with the same broad brush. Maybe I need to live somewhere other than rural NY, rural south, NY city suburb, or Fl city. Because I have lived a significant time in all those places and don't see the Nazis coming back to life in any of them.

No under Obama your fellow liberals would have called it a racist and got it canned for not being progressive enough. UN PC behavior will be ok again if you like it or not. There is a limit to how much people are willing to pretend in a country with a First and a Second.

so we have power over you? thanks for the heads up

__________________
letterboxd

So, I wanted to address another matter here: Racism inspired by Trump.


Now, the number 1 defense I keep reading about Trump (mainly in Yahoo comments sections of Trump articles) is this: "Just because White Nationalists/KKK/other racists are inspired to be their racist selves doesn't mean that Trump should be blamed!)


That is EXACTLY why Trump should be blamed. A president, like a parent, is supposed to set an example. He may not be wearing a white hood and rallying himself, but you know what? He's not CONDEMNING it either. Why isn't he giving national addresses speaking against the KKK and other racist attacks? Why isn't he condemning the fact that David Duke loves him? Why isn't he condemning those people who gave Nazi salutes at his rallies?


Why? Because he agrees with them. That's my view of it. And even if--even IF he actually DOESN'T agree with those people...why is he not condemning them? Because he doesn't want to lose voters for the re-election? If so--that's just as bad. That's letting racism and White Nationalism slide.


I've seen people constantly blame Obama for BLM and for not condemning it but I never see a single supporter of Trump calling for Trump to condemn all these KKK supporters/White Nationalists/etc.

This falls back to my original point: It's one extreme or the other with no middle ground. This is why our country is rapidly sinking. As the old saying goes: two wrongs don't make a right.

You mentioned Trump's supporters not conceding anything, clearly his opposition doesn't either. Works both ways. And pretty hoity-toity to write off the country outside of California and New York, and the voters that elected him.

Was interesting when you didn't squeeze Hillary's voters though, when their reason was hating Trump. That wasn't a principle either. Regardless this whole line of reasoning has been derogatory, when literally no one else here or even you has expressed their in-depth political principles.

Only in the sense of bringing balance, in the force, hey that's a Yoda thing

It would if we were in equivalent positions. Lies and contradictions require concessions. Pointing out things are lies and contradictions does not.

Huh? Who is this even directed at?

Oy, this again. I responded to it here and here and here, and a few other places, too. This whole bit is worthless if you can't ever address the response.

Are you kidding? I've been describing my principles on here for half my life. I make no secrets about what I believe and will gladly answer any question you care to ask on the topic. This is so aggressively false that it makes me think you're just reflexively bouncing the same accusations back without stopping to ask yourself if they're remotely true.

Moreover, nobody asked you for "in-depth political principles." You refuse to answer even broad, simple questions about policy. Asking you about Reagan's trade policy is not a personal question, dude, let alone a derogatory one.

For @nostromo87: President Trump = Git 'er done!

When you claim there's nothing constructive or encouraging about President Trump, that is hoity-toity to write off the country outside of California and New York that elected him. Pretty straight-forward.

Then you'd have conducted a more balanced forum during the campaign

Well, I normally try to speak clearly, using the English language. It's the only one I know. It's that or I just use my keyboard, trying to remember where all the keys are. Especially when I lose my glasses.

__________________

While there is a lot of things to criticize Hillary about, it'd be impossible to balance criticisms of both her and Trump. He'll always be worse, no matter how you look at it. No matter what.

Nope! I'd be able to. Don't get the impression I'll work up a big debate in here. I'm a big hater of those things. It's rather pointless. No matter what I'd say, you'd never change your mind, and no matter what you'd say, I'll never change mine. I'm not a fan of wasting time.

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.
Opinion: The beliefs or views about a particular thing.

Those pictures are both good, but in my opinion, the second picture is hilarious.


OK, that second pic IS hilarious.

Still trying to figure out how Hillary had the government, the liberal education system, the national media, the entertainment industry in her pocket, AND was handed the script to the debates... and still lost! Nobody has talked about that on here. A candidate who rigged everything, and still lost, it's pretty funny