If you won a contest....

[Cellblock2429]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

 

[iceberg]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

Didnt Obama blame bush for 4 to 6+ years, constantly talking about him?

 

[iceberg]

These things I believe.

Trump and his supporters are cut from the same bolt of cloth. They believe to build themselves up, they must tear others down. The election is over. Has been for a year now. And yet the specter of Hillary Clinton lays at the front of their collective imagination. Democrats know that she lost. That is not the upsetting part.

The upsetting part is Trump won. Any of the other 16 Republican candidates would have been accepted and respected as they did not display the reprehensible characteristics Trump has. We Americans who do not share your disposition and character are deeply embarrassed and shamed by his comportment. As is the rest of the world.

Call me a snowflake, call me a Libtards. I don't care. I am secure enough in my maturity not to be offended by manecalling and second grade level bullying. Rather, I pity those who fail to craft an effective argument.

I want to know what are Trump's virtues. What makes him an admirable person. A person worthy of respect. Please list them so I might have a better understanding of him and his followers.

I imagine his supporters as folks who feel betrayed by our system of government. But their solution was to elect a petulant neophyte who tends to engage in every petty dispute. An individual not ashamed of punching down or swinging at every pitch. This lacks dignity and only serves to further divide an already divided nation.

Is the larger strategy divide and conquer? If so, conquer who? Other Americans?

So, if she weren't running for election you would be OK with prosecuting her for her crimes. But because she lost you want to give her a pass. Is that accurate?

Her crimes, real or alleged are irrelevant. The danger is what Teump and his character flaws daring to our society.

If Sec. Clinton broke the law, I trust the justice system to act responsibly. What I have no trust is is Trump acting responsibly.

Forget Hillary. She lost. But can you accept Trump and his petulance to be a responsible leader?

Her crimes are irrelevant?

FUCK THAT.

 

[SeaGal]

I want to know what are Trump's virtues. What makes him an admirable person. A person worthy of respect. Please list them so I might have a better understanding of him and his followers.

Besides being elected to the office of President of the United States? We're basically in the same boat - I could never understand the last guys appeal to his followers...other than he was 'not Bush'. Trump is 'not Hillary'. You should have run a respectable candidate.

 

[Pete7469]

I knew we weren't in control anymore when I saw who my choices were. Reminded me of the voting "choices" back in the old U.S.S.R. Trump was a huge mistake, though.

Nowhere close to the mistake hitlery would have been, and if I had my way Ted Cruz would have won, and by now you would be breathing fire because every leftist parasite in the DOJ would have been fired day one, and hitlery might already be under house arrest.

As much as I don't like some of the stuff Trump has done, he is getting some stuff done, and it's making democrook heads explode. Anything that does that is actual progress. Your side is wrong in its basic fundamentals. Collectivism is wrong as practiced at any degree. It is morally backwards in anyone's concept of the basics of right VS. wrong, and it requires contortions based on emotion over logic in order to "think" it is ok to take value of someone who worked to create it, for the benefit of someone else against the will of the provider.

Period. End of fucking discussion.

One size fits all centralized government programs ALWAYS FAIL, especially when there is no accountability for those managing it, or when there is no clear objective. There is so much waste and redundancy in the federal government that you can cut %20 out of the budget, hire or train real managers and they can make the beast function as piss poorly as it does now.


.

 

[OldLady]

These things I believe.

What is your point? Do you think a photograph constitutes a retort?

Individuals still getting off on women crying are sick.

The idea that people (men and women) cried on the night isn't so amusing ... the fact that they're still crying, holding their breath, and stomping their feet a year later is hilarious.

Even Old Lady is finally losing it... this left wing mass hysteria thing is funny stuff.

You think I'm "losing it" because I say Trump and Clinton were no "choice?"
At least 10 of the 17 Repubs running would have given me more pause than Trump. I hated her. I think Debbie WS was a younger version of her. I was BEGGING for a choice. And what did you give me?

 

[OldLady]

Trump is a political neophyte

You say that like it's a bad thing. We've all seen how the political insiders do things.

The Wendy's down the street is where one might go for on the job training. Wendy's does not Include access to the nuclear codes. Make a mistake at Wendy's and someone gets miffed about the $7.39 they spent on lunch. Make a mistake in the Oval Office and people die.

The candidate over whose defeat you and yours have shed so many tears has literally been in politics her entire adult life and any pejorative or accusation that could be leveled against President Trump could be laid at her swollen feet ten fold.

As I said before, speaking for myself, I was not that heavily invested in Sec. Clinton's candidacy. I worked for President Obama in 2012 and in 2008. I was inundated with calls to work on the Clinton campaign, but I refused them. No one could make the argument that the Democratic nominee in 2016 was the most sterling choice. Many Americans agreed that the campaign of 2016 presented abysmychoices on both tickets.

So, you see, I am not what you might call a snowflake (talk about pejoratives). I understood that Trump was and continues to be a demagogue, a flamethrower, a little man with a massive yet paper thin ego and someone throughly unfit to hold the office of the President.

What baffles me is, why didn't everyone? Have we as a society devolved to the lowest common denominator? Have we come to accept a boorish reality game show host as the best possible choice to lead?

And yet today, fifty one weeks since the election, there are people more willing to prosecute the loser than be embarrassed by the winner. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its weary eyes to you.

And yet today, fifty one weeks since the election, there are people more willing to prosecute the loser than be embarrassed by the winner. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its weary eyes to you.
Winner.

 

[usmbguest5318]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

Tu quoque.

 

[Cellblock2429]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

 

[usmbguest5318]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

 

[Cellblock2429]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

/—-/ Watch the videos. It will be fun to watch you deny them: obama blaming bush - YouTube

 

[usmbguest5318]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

/—-/ Watch the videos. It will be fun to watch you deny them: obama blaming bush - YouTube

As I said, tu quoque.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

/—-/ Watch the videos. It will be fun to watch you deny them: obama blaming bush - YouTube

As I said, tu quoque.

/—-/ No numbnuts you said you didn’t recall Obozo blaming Bush except for one thing. I provided a long list. Now run along and play with your friends

 

[Cellblock2429]

What is your point? Do you think a photograph constitutes a retort?

Individuals still getting off on women crying are sick.

The idea that people (men and women) cried on the night isn't so amusing ... the fact that they're still crying, holding their breath, and stomping their feet a year later is hilarious.

Even Old Lady is finally losing it... this left wing mass hysteria thing is funny stuff.

You think I'm "losing it" because I say Trump and Clinton were no "choice?"
At least 10 of the 17 Repubs running would have given me more pause than Trump. I hated her. I think Debbie WS was a younger version of her. I was BEGGING for a choice. And what did you give me?

/—-/ Trump is the first private citizen elected president. All others were career politicians. That is why he was elected

 

[usmbguest5318]

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

/—-/ Watch the videos. It will be fun to watch you deny them: obama blaming bush - YouTube

As I said, tu quoque.

/—-/ No numbnuts you said you didn’t recall Obozo blaming Bush except for one thing. I provided a long list. Now run along and play with your friends

Yes, I did write that. I also wrote that doing so was errant on my part.

It is errant because I wrote it in response to your tu quoque statement, and I should have simply identified that your remarks were tu quoque in nature, and written nothing more. I realized mistake, which is why I wrote the following:

I retract my earlier post (post #68)

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame |
White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

/—-/ Watch the videos. It will be fun to watch you deny them: obama blaming bush - YouTube

As I said, tu quoque.

/—-/ No numbnuts you said you didn’t recall Obozo blaming Bush except for one thing. I provided a long list. Now run along and play with your friends

Yes, I did write that. I also wrote that doing so was errant on my part.

It is errant because I wrote it in response to your tu quoque statement, and I should have simply identified that your remarks were tu quoque in nature, and written nothing more. I realized mistake, which is why I wrote the following:

I retract my earlier post (post #68)

/—-/ Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha

 

[iceberg]

Trump is a political neophyte

You say that like it's a bad thing. We've all seen how the political insiders do things.

The Wendy's down the street is where one might go for on the job training. Wendy's does not Include access to the nuclear codes. Make a mistake at Wendy's and someone gets miffed about the $7.39 they spent on lunch. Make a mistake in the Oval Office and people die.

The candidate over whose defeat you and yours have shed so many tears has literally been in politics her entire adult life and any pejorative or accusation that could be leveled against President Trump could be laid at her swollen feet ten fold.

As I said before, speaking for myself, I was not that heavily invested in Sec. Clinton's candidacy. I worked for President Obama in 2012 and in 2008. I was inundated with calls to work on the Clinton campaign, but I refused them. No one could make the argument that the Democratic nominee in 2016 was the most sterling choice. Many Americans agreed that the campaign of 2016 presented abysmychoices on both tickets.

So, you see, I am not what you might call a snowflake (talk about pejoratives). I understood that Trump was and continues to be a demagogue, a flamethrower, a little man with a massive yet paper thin ego and someone throughly unfit to hold the office of the President.

What baffles me is, why didn't everyone? Have we as a society devolved to the lowest common denominator? Have we come to accept a boorish reality game show host as the best possible choice to lead?

And yet today, fifty one weeks since the election, there are people more willing to prosecute the loser than be embarrassed by the winner. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its weary eyes to you.

And yet today, fifty one weeks since the election, there are people more willing to prosecute the loser than be embarrassed by the winner. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its weary eyes to you.
Winner.

We can do both.

 

[iceberg]

...Would you spend any time talking about the people whom you defeated in the contest?

I would not because, having won, the fitting place for people to focus their attention is on my accomplishments and subsequent pursuits, not on my competitors. To wit, aside from saying something like "they put up a good fight," do Super Bowl winners talk about what the other team did? Do any competitors in any event regularly and months and months later bring up, as the focus of a discussion, their competitors performance? Not that comes to mind. Instead they talk about what they are going to do going forward. Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing non-stop since having almost a year ago won the 2016 presidential election.

And what is there to come of it?

• Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation isn't going away until Mueller determines he's finished it, or until Trump fires him.
• The fact that Donald Trump is an inveterate liar will not be altered by discussing someone else.
• That Trump has the lowest first quarter approval rating of all POTUSes since WWII will not change.
• That Trump contracted [his term not mine] with the American people to achieve a variety of things in his first 100 days in office and got few of them done as and when claimed cannot be undone by discussing someone else. (Remember that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them.)
• That Trump has not seen passed the repeal and replacement of O-care is so regardless of whom else he talks about.
• Talking about someone else isn't going to change the fact that Trump's tax plan is vastly more favorable to wealthy people than to middle and lower income people, which is opposite of what Trump promised to do.
• Talking about someone else won't change the fact that, as a result of Trump's behavior, America is less well regarded by its allies and that allied foreign leaders don't trust him.

What his talking about someone and something other than governance and policy accomplishes just one thing. It's distracts attention from the performance of that which he and Congress are supposed to be doing. Of course, when there are few to no substantive merits in one's ideas, discussing anything other than one's own policy proposals, and one's efforts to effect them, reduces the time people have to discuss the dearth of merit one's intentions have.

/—-/ Yeah it was disgusting how Obozo spent 5 years blaming GWB for everything.

IIRC, he blamed Bush for the state of the economy Obama was given as a starting point in his presidency, and consequences of it being in that state as of Jan. 2009. I don't recall anything else for which he blamed Bush.

/—-/ You don’t recall or you choose to ignore Obozo blaming Bush non stop? President Obama’s Hall of Blame | White House Dossier

I didn't immediately point out the rational absurdity of your line of argument just above and in your post before it and having the same theme. I should have and said nothing more, and that I didn't was my mistake. I retract my earlier post (post #68) and in it's place put the following:

Tu quoque.

Quite simply, I'm not going to offer a refutation of a patently fallacious line of argument.

Ie I see my hypocrisy and I'm stopping now with my big word parachute.

 

[Papageorgio]

After winning in 2008, Obama continued for eight years blaming Republicans. Seems to be the norm to me.

 

[Cellblock2429]

After winning in 2008, Obama continued for eight years blaming Republicans. Seems to be the norm to me.

/—-/ Watch out, Xelor will use his big word on you. Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha