Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[jgarden]

Many of you may have noticed, my rhetoric has picked up in the last 6 months. I use harsh language and ridiculous statements. I do it on purpose to mirror the left. That's why I call them radical left wing extremist terrorists, just to sound as ridiculous as the democrats. Trump is doing a fine job and the dems hate it

The term is "relative equivalency" - if the supporters on one side commit a morally indefensible act, they do everything in their power to drag the other side down to their level by creating "false narratives," rather than re-examine their own values!

"Alternative facts" and "fake news" are nothing more than means to an end - in this case, "false narratives!"

 

[Town Heretic]

People long dead put up General Lee's statue. People long dead didn't take down General Lee's statue. Now, people take down the statue. People show up to protest taking it down. People show up protesting the protest. Then a murderer ran his car into people. And this is all President Trump's fault.

So does it have to be "it's all Trump's fault" or "he's blameless as the driven snow"? Maybe the truth is that his rhetoric and contempt for the other has translated into emboldening elements that largely kept to the shadows, which has driven up the public temperature and produced violence, both on the part of those cretins and in response to their increasing presence in the public square?

Is he responsible for the killing in Charleston? No, of course he isn't. Did he make it more likely to happen? Yes, of course he did.

 

[rexlunae]

Not necessarily. The black shooters, killing police officers around the country, within the last two years, were members of the BLM movement. Here is a recent example:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/opinions/bronx-cop-killing-louis/index.html

These are the types of activists, that were present in Charlottesville. There were BLM members there, causing trouble. They often, physically assault their political opponents and when the opposition defends itself or retaliates, they play the innocent victim. I'm not suggesting the young lady that was deliberately mowed down by a vehicle, deserved it. She most probably wasn't even one of the violent Antifa activists, assaulting people, but nonetheless, Antifa often initiates the physical violence, creating the conditions, for these types of horrible acts to happen. In the quagmire of violence, sparked by the left, lethal situations are likely to occur. Out of fear, rage, people fight back and bad things happen.

That is a bizarre false equivalence. Where were the BLM people who rushed to defend those actions? There weren't any. For Trump to come around after the fact and try to justify what a bunch of Nazis were doing in the wake of a murder that they inspired was a new low, even for him, although it wasn't surprising.

 

[Nihilo]

So does it have to be "it's all Trump's fault" or "he's blameless as the driven snow"?

He wasn't driving the car, he didn't say tear down General Lee's statue, he didn't encourage protests, and he didn't text the driver nor any of the protesters to be there or do anything. In this case, to make him culpable is beyond reason.

Maybe the truth is that his rhetoric and contempt for the other

I find any contempt that the president has, to be targeted at people based on the merits, and not out of any prejudice, racial or otherwise. Disagreement about his judgment of the merits is valid of course, but I believe all of his contempt comes from his honest appraisal of the merits of what they've done and said.

has translated into emboldening elements that largely kept to the shadows, which has driven up the public temperature

I think that's a good thing. It's important that these "deplorables" come out into the clear so we can all see them and find them guilty of whatever attitudes and biases and opinions they may and do hold. It's always better when you can see all the vermin, rather than they're all holed up their dens.

and produced violence

Disagreed that the president is responsible for violence.

, both on the part of those cretins and in response to their increasing presence in the public square?

Like I said, their increasing presence is a good thing, in order for us to clean up the mess.

Is he responsible for the killing in Charleston? No, of course he isn't. Did he make it more likely to happen? Yes, of course he did.

I reject that he is responsible in any way for violence somebody else perpetrated, especially since he wasn't there and had nothing to do with the thing.

 

[annabenedetti]

He wasn't driving the car, he didn't say tear down General Lee's statue, he didn't encourage protests, and he didn't text the driver nor any of the protesters to be there or do anything. In this case, to make him culpable is beyond reason.

Oh, but he was the back seat driver.

People who voted for Trump are scrambling every which way they can to claim what Trump isn't - but he is. He really is.

Even I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because I saw him as an exploiter and an enabler, benefiting from the white nationalist racist alt-right political and financial support and adulation. But even I gave him more credit than he deserved. No more. And no more for his supporters, either, who continue to pretend they didn't create this monster.

No word in the Trump lexicon is as tread-worn as “unprecedented.” But members of the president’s staff, stunned and disheartened, said they never expected to hear such a voluble articulation of opinions that the president had long expressed in private. The National Economic Council chairman, Gary D. Cohn, and the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, who are Jewish, stood by uncomfortably as the president exacerbated a controversy that has once again engulfed a White House in disarray​

 

[Town Heretic]

He wasn't driving the car, he didn't say tear down General Lee's statue, he didn't encourage protests, and he didn't text the driver nor any of the protesters to be there or do anything. In this case, to make him culpable is beyond reason.

See, that followed my question and quote, but it didn't answer it. You seem to be among those arguing the driven snow end and that's about as unreasonable as claiming he drove the car. I've noted why.

I find any contempt that the president has, to be targeted at people based on the merits, and not out of any prejudice, racial or otherwise.

Then Nihilo, you're part of the problem in his tangential support base, because it's there and always has been. It's one reason I refused to vote for him even after I'd determined I couldn't support his rival.

Disagreement about his judgment of the merits is valid of course, but I believe all of his contempt comes from his honest appraisal of the merits of what they've done and said.

I think that's a good thing.

I couldn't disagree more. Emboldening people with that mindset is like throwing a struck match in the woods after you've got your pipe going. It might not amount to anything, but all you need is dry leaves and a little wind.

It's important that these "deplorables" come out into the clear so we can all see them and find them guilty of whatever attitudes and biases and opinions they may and do hold.

I don't believe anyone is really unclear about what's deplorable in a Nazi, a White Supremacist, etc.

It's always better when you can see all the vermin, rather than they're all holed up their dens.

Whatever marginal gain we get from that is drowned out by the want of value in creating an atmosphere that gives them that level of comfort or self-assurance.

Disagreed that the president is responsible for violence.

You're not listening to me, Nihilo. Another problem in Trump's base. A person is responsible for their actions. A guy who uses your shotgun to kill his wife is guilty of murder. But if you know they're having marital problems and he has a temper, setting your shotgun against a tree in your back yard might lend you a bit of responsibility of the moral variety.

Or maybe all you did is say, "Women" and give him that exasperated look of understanding. That appears to be what the lunatic fringe sees in Trump. And he knows it because it's been there for a while. A thing that should make a man of parts set a different rhetorical course.

Like I said, their increasing presence is a good thing, in order for us to clean up the mess.

How is that being done and by whom? It's a bit like suggesting that it's a good idea to get people to leave their doors unlocked at night so we can get a real clear shot at rounding up thieves.

I reject that he is responsible in any way for violence somebody else perpetrated,

I got that. And you're as wrong headed as the people trying to nearly put him behind the wheel for the reasons offered prior and above.

especially since he wasn't there and had nothing to do with the thing.

Proximity and causality aren't always related, though again, I'm speaking to a broader moral responsibility and not a criminal liability.

 

[Nihilo]

Oh, but he was the back seat driver.

Disagreed.

Spoiler

These are out of context, but they do lend more credence to the president's reaction on Monday to what had happened. "Alt-left."

People who voted for Trump are scrambling every which way they can to claim what Trump isn't - but he is. He really is.

I like him. I like him as president, and I like him as a businessman. He's not my moral leader, that'd be Jesus. He is in the WH to represent the United States in negotiations with other countries, and that's what he's been hired to do, among other things, and I think he represents US well. I also want to see laws passed to force all future POTUSs to use social media as regularly as he is the model president in terms of openness and communication frequency with Americans and with the world, and has set the precedent for all of them. He is the most powerful person in the whole world, and I sure do like knowing what he's thinking about at all times, given all that power.

Even I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because I saw him as an exploiter and an enabler, benefiting from the white nationalist racist alt-right political and financial support and adulation.

I don't understand why you gave him the benefit of the doubt then. Unless these things weren't supposed to be linked together?

But even I gave him more credit than he deserved. No more. And no more for his supporters, either, who continue to pretend they didn't create this monster.

I don't know what you're talking about. What monster. It's not that I don't think that you are perceiving a monster, but I don't see it myself. I'm not one to go along with the crowd, when the crowd is chasing a witch, or seeing ghosts, or any other number of things that are very suspicious sounding on their face.

No word in the Trump lexicon is as tread-worn as “unprecedented.” But members of the president’s staff, stunned and disheartened, said they never expected to hear such a voluble articulation of opinions that the president had long expressed in private.

One of the things I love about President Trump, is that we absolutely know that he is not holding anything back from us. President Bush played that part well, though he did withhold plenty from us, but if President Trump is doing that, he is way smarter than me, because I can't see any trickery; I think he means what he says, and twitters.

The National Economic Council chairman, Gary D. Cohn, and the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, who are Jewish, stood by uncomfortably as the president exacerbated a controversy that has once again engulfed a White House in disarray

I know that people are uncomfortable with President Trump, and that's OK with me. Not making people uncomfortable, is not a metric upon which I judge the job performance of a president of the United States.

 

[annabenedetti]

Disagreed.

These are out of context

So because he didn't say them after Charlottesville, you won't hold him accountable? The fact that he said them at all is unconscionable, and his alt-right base knew through statements like this that he was instigating violent action on their part. His words allowed for Charlottesville, made it acceptable. How do you excuse him for what he said?

I like him. I like him as president, and I like him as a businessman.

I'm sorry for you, that you can like someone who has sexually assaulted women, who has ridiculed the disabled, targeted whole populations based on ethnicity or religion, tacitly supported and retweeted white nationalists, lied repeatedly, been disastrous at foreign policy, has no idea how the government works or how to govern, and is lousy at consensus and compromise.

He's not my moral leader

But you like him, you really like him.

Sad.

He is in the WH to represent the United States in negotiations with other countries, and that's what he's been hired to do, among other things, and I think he represents US well.

I also want to see laws passed to force all future POTUSs to use social media as regularly as he is the model president in terms of openness and communication frequency with Americans and with the world, and has set the precedent for all of them. He is the most powerful person in the whole world, and I sure do like knowing what he's thinking about at all times, given all that power.

You're deluding yourself.

I don't understand why you gave him the benefit of the doubt then.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt in thinking he was using white supremacists for political gain rather than being of like mind with them. I was wrong.

I don't know what you're talking about. What monster.

Clearly you've had your head in the sand.

I'm not one to go along with the crowd, when the crowd is chasing a witch, or seeing ghosts, or any other number of things that are very suspicious sounding on their face.

I'm hardly going along with the crowd here. lain:

In fact, I was banned for quoting your president and using asterisks instead of a complete redaction.

Sad.

One of the things I love about President Trump

I really have nothing else to say other than you should read up on what the Pope thinks about Trump. Since the Catholic Church, its teachings and its magisterium are your guiding lights, maybe it would be good for you to see where the Church parts ways with this Trump you love so much.

 

[Nihilo]

See, that followed my question and quote, but it didn't answer it.

See, yes it did.

You seem to be among those arguing the driven snow end and that's about as unreasonable as claiming he drove the car. I've noted why.

I answered it.

Then Nihilo, you're part of the problem

No I'm not.

it's there and always has been.

Where? Every view he's expressed is based upon merit. That's my view. And even if you disagree, then you disagree with him, because he has always judged people based upon merit, according to him. So you are arguing that while he thinks he's judging people based upon merit, it's actually racism or sexism or some other ism, and you need to prove that one.

It's one reason I refused to vote for him even after I'd determined I couldn't support his rival.

I don't know why you would say that. So, you didn't vote for anybody? Or you did vote for his rival anyway?

I couldn't disagree more. Emboldening people with that mindset is like throwing a struck match in the woods after you've got your pipe going. It might not amount to anything, but all you need is dry leaves and a little wind.

So you believe that he has committed a crime? Like starting a forest fire by negligently throwing lit matches into a pile of dried up pine needles? Are you arguing that he is a criminal?

I don't believe anyone is really unclear about what's deplorable in a Nazi, a White Supremacist, etc.

Nazis had power, these people have none, and never will.

Whatever marginal gain we get from that is drowned out by the want of value in creating an atmosphere that gives them that level of comfort or self-assurance.

That's called the First Amendment.

http://us.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html

Nobody's calling the driver anything but a murderer, btw, including President Trump. Nobody's condoning murder, or violence of any kind, including assault.

You're not listening to me, Nihilo. Another problem in Trump's base.

Yes I am, very hard. If you're not getting through, then take some responsibility and break it down nice and simple so I don't miss it again. Start with not using "man of parts," like you do in this post. If you really think I'm not listening, then why use words that are unfamiliar to everybody else but you? Are you trying to communicate, to be heard, or are you doing something else? It just seems like you're not thinking this all the way through.

A person is responsible for their actions. A guy who uses your shotgun to kill his wife is guilty of murder. But if you know they're having marital problems and he has a temper, setting your shotgun against a tree in your back yard might lend you a bit of responsibility of the moral variety.

First of all, So what? And secondly, why would someone having a temper mean that they'll kill someone if you give them a gun? And meanwhile, there've been plenty of murderers who are cool as a cucumber.

Or maybe all you did is say, "Women" and give him that exasperated look of understanding. That appears to be what the lunatic fringe sees in Trump. And he knows it because it's been there for a while. A thing that should make a man of parts set a different rhetorical course.

Who accused him of being that?

How is that being done and by whom?

They're never going to have power.

It's a bit like suggesting that it's a good idea to get people to leave their doors unlocked at night so we can get a real clear shot at rounding up thieves.

I suppose if you must see it as cynically as possible, well you did. Otherwise, it's not anything like that. 'More like, round up all the thieves, by sending them fake big winning lottery tickets in the mail so they have to come in person to cash them out. That usually gets them all.

I got that. And you're as wrong headed as the people trying to nearly put him behind the wheel for the reasons offered prior and above.

Nope, I missed it. (I'm slow, as you alluded to, so I know you know this already.) Go through the reasons again, and explain why I'm quote-unquote wrong headed.

Proximity and causality aren't always related

Thanks.

, though again, I'm speaking to a broader moral responsibility and not a criminal liability.

Oh. President Trump is not my moral leader at all. I listen to Jesus on that mark. None of us is moral according to Jesus.

 

[Nihilo]

So because he didn't say them after Charlottesville, you won't hold him accountable?

Accountable for what? Driving the car into people? I don't hold him accountable for that, no.

The fact that he said them at all is unconscionable, and his alt-right base knew through statements like this that he was instigating violent action on their part.

He either is responsible for what violence other people choose to do, or he is not, and I say that he is not. His hyperbole is not criminal.

His words allowed for Charlottesville, made it acceptable.

This is confirmation bias.

How do you excuse him for what he said?

The thought never even occurred to me, since I never thought he said anything requiring or wanting any excuse.

I'm sorry for you

That's nice.

, that you can like someone who has sexually assaulted women

Huh? Do you mean verbal assault?

, who has ridiculed the disabled, targeted whole populations based on ethnicity or religion, tacitly supported and retweeted white nationalists, lied repeatedly, been disastrous at foreign policy, has no idea how the government works or how to govern, and is lousy at consensus and compromise.

He's actually excellent at compromise.

But you like him, you really like him.

Sad.

Uh-huh.

You're deluding yourself.

lain:

I gave him the benefit of the doubt in thinking he was using white supremacists for political gain rather than being of like mind with them.

How is that acceptable to you, that you did that?

I was wrong.

You mean, because he's not "using white supremacists for political gain," therefore you were wrong? Or because you realized that if a political candidate is using anybody for political gain, that is an insufficient reason to give him the benefit of the doubt in the first place? And, when did you give him the benefit of the doubt, what was the timeframe for this, and when did you rescind it? My cursory impression has been that you've been against the president since well before he was elected.

Clearly you've had your head in the sand.

I've never seen anything like this Trump administration, it is certainly one for the ages in my book. I really don't think I've had my head in the sand, for fear that I'd miss the latest outrageous headline or twittered. I wonder how businesses deriving most of their income from news products have been doing since November? Public companies would have reported once or twice by now, I wonder if any of them have received more business for the simple reason that President Trump gives them so much to write about. Not that it's important, except for the investors and owners of those companies.

I'm hardly going along with the crowd here. lain:

All I know, is that I'm not currently going along with your crowd.

In fact, I was banned for quoting your president and using asterisks instead of a complete redaction.

Sad.

Just say censored, liberally.

I really have nothing else to say other than you should read up on what the Pope thinks about Trump.

I remember Pope Francis called out the future President Trump on his promise to build a wall, only to be roundly smacked down with twither, pointing out the hypocrisy in his criticism, wrt the Vatican being a walled city/state.

Since the Catholic Church, its teachings and its magisterium are your guiding lights, maybe it would be good for you to see where the Church parts ways with this Trump you love so much.

Why don't you just tell me? And, it sounds like you're saying that any good Catholic should feel the way you do about the president, and that if we don't, that we aren't good Catholics? Even though you have renounced your own Catholic faith in some sense? I don't understand how that works.

 

[annabenedetti]

Accountable for what? Driving the car into people? I don't hold him accountable for that, no.
He either is responsible for what violence other people choose to do, or he is not, and I say that he is not. His hyperbole is not criminal.

I say he is. He's created the environment, allowed for it, encouraged it. Open your mind and consider the possibility.

This is confirmation bias.

No it's not. It's not even how confirmation bias works.

The thought never even occurred to me

And that's a problem.

He's actually excellent at compromise.

Show me some examples. I'd be interested.

Uh-huh.

Open your eyes, and your mind. You're not wanting to see or acknowledge what's plainly right in front of you.

You mean, because he's not "using white supremacists for political gain," therefore you were wrong?

I said it very clearly. Read it again.

All I know, is that I'm not currently going along with your crowd.

You made your observation, I merely told you that I'm not running with the majority TOL crowd, so it didn't apply to me.

Just say censored, liberally.

I said it how I said it. Why quibble over it?

I remember Pope Francis called out

Falling into Americanism, are you? Where is your sensus Catholicus?

the future President Trump on his promise to build a wall, only to be roundly smacked down with twither,

So Twitter speaks for you, over the Pope? Interesting.

pointing out the hypocrisy in his criticism, wrt the Vatican being a walled city/state.

Fascinating, you've abandoned the magisterium, then?

Why don't you just tell me?

I don't think you're interested. If you are, you'll do your own research.

And, it sounds like you're saying that any good Catholic should feel the way you do about the president, and that if we don't, that we aren't good Catholics?

You'll hear what you want to hear, it's obvious.

Even though you have renounced your own Catholic faith in some sense? I don't understand how that works.

Maybe because I haven't 'renounced' it. Perhaps you should study how it works, because that's not how it works.

And since I can't/don't want to engage in a multi-day conversation, you can have the last word and I'll let you get back to your Trump adulation. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

No I'm not.

You're capable of seeing it clearly and you choose not to. I am saying that his rhetoric and approach have emboldened the sort of people who went to Charlottesville to spread the case for racism and white supremacy. And that led to the violence that followed after it. I don't have any reason to believe Charlottesville happens in a Trump free political universe.

Where? Every view he's expressed is based upon merit.

You mean like the time he called an American born federal judge a Mexican and suggested he couldn't do his job? Or his comments that offered the impression of Mexicans entering the U.S. as criminals with "some" good ones mixed in?

That's my view. And even if you disagree, then you disagree with him, because he has always judged people based upon merit, according to him.

You ever heard someone say something racist and then tell you they weren't racist? The woman who called Obama's wife a gorilla did that. It happens. Most people are the hero of their own narratives.

So, you didn't vote for anybody?

I did more. I chose to actively attempt to convince people to refuse both choices offered by the two parties and for similar reasons. I'm surprised you missed it. Ask around.

So you believe that he has committed a crime?

See, that's what I mean by not really hearing me. I'll come back to the pudding in a moment.

Nazis had power, these people have none, and never will.

No, at first they didn't. And some people doubtless thought they never would. Not in Germany.

That's called the First Amendment.

I'm not arguing against the first Amendment.

If you're not getting through, then take some responsibility and break it down nice and simple so I don't miss it again.

Proximity and causality aren't always related, though again, I'm speaking to a broader moral responsibility and not a criminal liability.

Or the post before that one:

Is he [Trump] responsible for the killing in Charleston? No, of course he isn't. Did he make it more likely to happen? Yes, of course he did.

Start with not using "man of parts," like you do in this post. If you really think I'm not listening, then why use words that are unfamiliar to everybody else but you?

The easy answer is that I have no idea what your education and background are so I can't know what is or isn't familiar to you. It was used by someone as plain speaking as Harry S. Truman, made famous by Lord Chesterfield and is nothing more or less than a natural reflection of my own background and education.

It's okay to ask or google if you run across a word or phrase that's unfamiliar to you for any number of reasons. I love it when that happens. Puts another arrow in the quiver. It's less okay to make a production out of it or cast aspersions as to my intent because you didn't get it.

Are you trying to communicate, to be heard, or are you doing something else?

Supra.

It just seems like you're not thinking this all the way through. First of all, So what?

That needs context. So what what, by way of?

And secondly, why would someone having a temper mean that they'll kill someone if you give them a gun?

A man with a temper is at odds with his wife. It's irresponsible to put any temptation in easy reach. It doesn't have to be a likely outcome, but the potential for disaster is foreseeable and your actions in leaving the means to make it more likely than without it isn't without moral weight, even if you have no criminal liability.

And meanwhile, there've been plenty of murderers who are cool as a cucumber.

And some who are left handed. Some probably liked Snickers. There are likely any number of curious potential points unrelated to mine.

Who accused him of being that?

Of using irresponsible with inflammatory rhetoric? Anyone who followed his comments over the course of his campaign who wasn't wedded to it. I've reposted some of that rhetoric in rebutting PJ's "He only said something like that once and took it back/regretted it" song and dance.

They're never going to have power.

You think the Jews who lived in Germany stayed because they thought the Brown Shirts would come to power there?

I suppose if you must see it as cynically as possible, well you did.

The analogy wasn't cynical, it simply wasn't willfully naive. If you don't think it's apt then by all means tell me why in particular.

Nope, I missed it. (I'm slow, as you alluded to, so I know you know this already.)

I've never said or thought you were slow. I've noted a tendency to be blind to the facts when your rooting interests are fully engaged.

Oh. President Trump is not my moral leader at all.

I didn't suggest he was...what I did note is that I've been speaking to a broader moral accountability on Trump's part for the alt right response to his rhetorical approach, not some sense of literal, criminal liability framed by the intent to cause harm.

None of us is moral according to Jesus.

So we might as well consider the pedophile and ourselves on the same moral ground? No. That's not the message. The message is that for all our distinctions we're still unworthy, that the best of us absent grace is in trouble if he argues for getting what he deserves. Did God set aside distinct punishments under the Law in the OT or did he say, "They're [offenses] all the same so just kill the offender for any and every transgression"?

 

[patrick jane]

[MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION] - How did Trump make it more likely to happen? That's a ridiculous statement

 

[Tambora]

He's not my moral leader, that'd be Jesus.

Exactly!
:cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

@Town Heretic - How did Trump make it more likely to happen? That's a ridiculous statement

It isn't and I've already answered why, along with presenting an analogy on the point.

Once more into the breached then...Trump has been loose with inflammatory rhetoric. He's presented an environment that encourages the element that turned out in Charlottsville to consider themselves the people he's speaking to, the people who need to "take back" their country. The proof of that is in the pudding of their increasing emergence on the public square and their own rhetorical responses to him.

Every time he raises a rough moral equivalence between the opposing forces in Charlottesville he serves their aim of increased normalization. It's why Spencer said they were, "Really proud of him" for noting the "many fine folks" among the alt right protesters. When Trump compares taking down those monuments to a would be slave state to pulling down monuments of the founding fathers he's serving up a plate of that equivalency and moving them a little closer, even in a larger censure, to their goal of standing on par with the people who are opposing their racist horsefeathers.

They aren't equivalent. And if he meant to note there were people among the protesters of memorial removal who weren't alt right and sympathetic to racist nonsense he should have said that. He didn't and in failing to make that sort of distinction he gave aid and encouragement to the David Dukes of the world.

"Thank you, Mr. President, for your honesty and courage." David Duke, Tweeting on the president's remarks.

Exactly!
:cheers:

No one suggested otherwise. He completely missed the point, as I noted and as you do in high fiving a misread. Jesus wept...Grow up already.

 

[chrysostom]

It isn't and I've already answered why,

so why do you continue to post -
we know what your answers are

 

[Town Heretic]

so why do you continue to post -
we know what your answers are

He asked a question. He might have missed the answer. Others will read him and might come to an errant conclusion. I think it's important to be clear, which is why I've noted your enormous hypocrisy, how you had the nerve to call anyone who didn't pull the Republican presidential lever, those who abstained and those who voted differently, as colluding baby killers--BEFORE you changed that tune and gave yourself a singular exception in relation to Trump. lain:

Now instead of showing some backbone on the point and taking responsibility, you've danced like one man chorus line. More recently you indicated you'd thank the Russians for giving you Trump and said you "Voted Republican" without further qualification, meaning you either lied to the people you were attacking about your position on Trump or you're trying to be clever about your actual vote in this election to avoid having to address your own problematic position.

Either way it's weaseling...see, clarity even in repetition can have some value.

 

[chrysostom]

He asked a question. He might have missed the answer.

then answer it again - you obviously have the time

 

[Town Heretic]

then answer it again - you obviously have the time

I did and in some depth, which you'd know if you'd been as interested in the point as you were in trying to score one.

 

[patrick jane]

then answer it again - you obviously have the time

Like most radical leftists, he has plenty of free time.