CDZ Why I support whomever. . .

[Foxfyre]

I see President Trump making one extemporaneous quip at a campaign rally that was blown all out of proportion and who has since that time made a point to urge careful and humane treatment of those ejected from his rallies and has unequivocally denounced the thugs and hoodlums who illegally obstruct traffic and businesses, terrorize, vandalize, loot, commit arson, assault and battery. And I see happy, smiling, enthusiastic, hopeful people showing up by the tens of thousands to his rallies and not once have I heard anybody at those rallies suggesting protests against the opposition.

I see Maxine Waters going to some length to encourage people to terrorize, shame, and prevent anybody who supports President Trump, particularly his staffers, from participating in any ordinary activities. And it was reported that her supporters who showed up at her California office this week were carrying bats and lengths of pipe.

Therein is the difference. And if you do not see one as worse than the other so be it.

Yes, trump supporters murdered someone. Big difference. Are you seriously going to pretend the blob only did it once—incited violence?

They did? Who was that? I expect a reliable source for that one too.

Fact check. Org is the source

James Alex Fields Archives - FactCheck.org

Oh well, if you are going to indict the entire Republican party, everybody on the right, and the entire Trump Administration for the act of one hateful person, we could go with a lot of counter examples of that:

1. The Las Vegas shooter targeting a conservative gathering
2. A hateful leftist targeting Republicans at a baseball practice
3. A Black Lives Matters supporter sniping and killing police officers from a rooftop

There is a long LONG list we could keep adding on here.

So I suggest you give up trying to argue your point on that score as you will clearly lose.

I might add that the Trump Administrations response to that Charlottesville unconscionable act:

. . .Fields was indicted on one federal count of a hate crime resulting in Heyer's death, 28 counts of hate crimes for causing bodily injury and involving an attempt to kill and one count of racially motivated violent interference with a federally protected activity.

The grand jury was sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville.

In announcing the indictment, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said his department has determined that "hateful ideologies will not have the last word and their adherents will not get away with violent crimes against those they target."

Sessions said the indictment "should send a clear message to every would-be criminal in America that we aggressively prosecute violent crimes of hate that threaten the core principles of our nation." . . .
Driver accused of plowing into crowd at Charlottesville rally charged with federal hate crimes​

You of course left out the folks chanting the Aryan slogan “Jews will not replace us” as they carried torches; you know...the same people the blob called “very fine people”

But thanks for acknowledging that the Cons and the Libs both have idiots. The question you will not answer is why you give folks like the accused murderer Fields a pass but cite the comparatively superficial things Maxine and her followers did. Don’t you think it is a double standard you have there?

Okay, when you have something honest and constructive to offer, I'll be glad to debate you. But this is so dishonest and over the top, I'll just wish you a pleasant day.

 

[candycorn]

Fox I haven’t seen you in a long time. Hope you are doing well.

I didn’t see anything in the poll that I could pick, so let me wing it.

What is missing from most of these posts is context. I never started out with the person, I start out with the country, the constitution , our history and the best way of preserving these for future generations. For instance, no matter how “qualified” Hilary was she was for Hilary, not for America. Trump, in spite of his abrasive style, volunteered, let me say that again, volunteered to try and get the country back on an American track. In short, there are principles that need to be preserved AND promoted, American, constitutional, and liberty principles. All of us carry a torch that we have to pass on to the next generation. That is my yardstick for candidates.

None of this is a zero sum game. As the little socialist cutiein New York, shows, the us could have its own system used to overthrow itself. And she brought so many democratic socialists who are also elected officials out of the closet that the democrats have real election problems. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Voting for the right candidates for the right reasons is part of eternal vigilance.

That is pretty much my position actually--I just am a lot wordier than you --except that I don't think Donald Trump is a despicable person. To me he is a flawed, imperfect person, as we all are to some extent. But I look at those that the Bible relates that God chose to do great things--not a perfect person in the lot. Some were deeply flawed. And I look at those figures in extra-Biblical and post-Biblical history who have literally changed the world for the better. All of those have been flawed, imperfect persons too, most who would never be deemed acceptable under modern political correctness criteria; some who would not be acceptable under most people's view of modern day morality. But the world benefited despite their 'despicableness.'

Donald Trump is often unlikable, is sometimes his own enemy, no doubt had done some despicable things. But I honestly think he knows what America most needs and is determined to do what he can to change the slow, steady downward spiral of decline that we have experienced for decades now. And whether his motive is his own legacy or a selfless love of America and Americans, I don't really care. He has offered a vision that I can embrace, and I for one am willing to do what I can to help him achieve it.

The world has often benefited and changed for the good by the vision of one person--somebody willing to step out of the status quo, i.e. one person with a different idea that caught on. Somebody once said that indeed no good significant change has ever happened any other way.

Also no bad significant change has ever happened any other way.

I am of the opinion that the President wants good change.

How many extramarital affairs would he have to have to become “Despicable”?
How many lies—not disagreements on policy but easily verifiable lies—does he have to tell before he becomes “Despicable”?

You'll have to cite the specific lie in order to know that. Has he wagged his finger in our faces declaring that the never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky and I never told anyone to lie? Did he go before the cameras to say again and again and again that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, etc. which was a bald faced lie and the President knew it?

We can go toe to toe on who lies the most or who is the more 'despicable', or we we can evaluate what the person is actually doing for the benefit of America and Americans.

Hmmm…I thought you were going to keep this focused on why you voted for this person or that person? Bringing up a President who hasn’t even held office in this century is cute but it violates your own standards; faint though they may be.

So I have to chronicle the lies that Trump has told? You are going to play dumb and pretend that you’re not aware of his tweets claiming that his win was a “landslide”, that he won the popular vote, that NK has denuclearized, that the G7 signed an agreement agreeing to increase their contributions… Are you going to play dumb and pretend that he didn’t have extramarital affairs?

Bringing up Bill Clinton is cute but the thread YOU started is about why you voted for whom you did. Bill Clinton wasn’t on the ballot.
So lets stop with the silly comparisons on that front. If you want to bring up Hillary’s lies fine.

I am pointing out the fallacy in the argument. That is all. I will discuss the actions of those who are serving the country, and I guarantee you Hillary's record is going to be a lot worse on that front than Trump's will be, but I won't trash the person and I ask that others do not also.

Based on nothing.

Here is an example of why trump’s lies and your accepting them is hurtful to the nation. The closed door meeting with his buddy Putin.

Here is what their ambassador said....

“Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, expressed hope Thursday that "the verbal agreements between Putin and Trump will be fulfilled" —“

What agreements? Not that I trust the Ambassador, or the President of either nation....but in the future if we reduce our arsenal, pull out of or back from NATO or any other move in Europe is it because of the agreements or whatever cover story is used?

The only thing we do know is that Trump is a liar and you know this as well.

A skilled diplomat or anyone who spent 8 seconds with one would know to not take such a meeting.

HRC wouldn’t have been put into that position

 

[candycorn]

Yes, trump supporters murdered someone. Big difference. Are you seriously going to pretend the blob only did it once—incited violence?

They did? Who was that? I expect a reliable source for that one too.

Fact check. Org is the source

James Alex Fields Archives - FactCheck.org

Oh well, if you are going to indict the entire Republican party, everybody on the right, and the entire Trump Administration for the act of one hateful person, we could go with a lot of counter examples of that:

1. The Las Vegas shooter targeting a conservative gathering
2. A hateful leftist targeting Republicans at a baseball practice
3. A Black Lives Matters supporter sniping and killing police officers from a rooftop

There is a long LONG list we could keep adding on here.

So I suggest you give up trying to argue your point on that score as you will clearly lose.

I might add that the Trump Administrations response to that Charlottesville unconscionable act:

. . .Fields was indicted on one federal count of a hate crime resulting in Heyer's death, 28 counts of hate crimes for causing bodily injury and involving an attempt to kill and one count of racially motivated violent interference with a federally protected activity.

The grand jury was sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville.

In announcing the indictment, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said his department has determined that "hateful ideologies will not have the last word and their adherents will not get away with violent crimes against those they target."

Sessions said the indictment "should send a clear message to every would-be criminal in America that we aggressively prosecute violent crimes of hate that threaten the core principles of our nation." . . .
Driver accused of plowing into crowd at Charlottesville rally charged with federal hate crimes​

You of course left out the folks chanting the Aryan slogan “Jews will not replace us” as they carried torches; you know...the same people the blob called “very fine people”

But thanks for acknowledging that the Cons and the Libs both have idiots. The question you will not answer is why you give folks like the accused murderer Fields a pass but cite the comparatively superficial things Maxine and her followers did. Don’t you think it is a double standard you have there?

Okay, when you have something honest and constructive to offer, I'll be glad to debate you. But this is so dishonest and over the top, I'll just wish you a pleasant day.

Too funny. You ignored trumps comments and you did not laughingly try to defend Fields.

I was honest. You have a problem with your hypocrisy being exposed. And now you are laughably crying foul.

 

[Circe]

I do not agree that the right identifies with rich people and the poor identify with poor people. If that was the case, the left would be doing something to lead or drive poor people out of poverty instead of making them more comfortable in poverty and/or encouraging more of it via making them more dependent on government, not to mention pushing for open borders and many many more poor people flooding into the country who will then keep the left in power.

I agree with everything you said except for that little bit above --

The Left can't lead or drive poor people out of poverty!! Then they wouldn't be poor: they'd be rich or middle-class or at least comfortable and orderly. But if (as I believe) the left identifies with poverty, they don't want that. They want the poor to stay poor. It is only the Right that wants to lead or drive poor people out of poverty, because we identify with being rich and we don't like poverty. The Left DOES like poverty and wants more and more poor, criminal people to flood in here illegally. So they can get power back.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do not agree that the right identifies with rich people and the poor identify with poor people. If that was the case, the left would be doing something to lead or drive poor people out of poverty instead of making them more comfortable in poverty and/or encouraging more of it via making them more dependent on government, not to mention pushing for open borders and many many more poor people flooding into the country who will then keep the left in power.

I agree with everything you said except for that little bit above --

The Left can't lead or drive poor people out of poverty!! Then they wouldn't be poor: they'd be rich or middle-class or at least comfortable and orderly. But if (as I believe) the left identifies with poverty, they don't want that. They want the poor to stay poor. It is only the Right that wants to lead or drive poor people out of poverty, because we identify with being rich and we don't like poverty. The Left DOES like poverty and wants more and more poor, criminal people to flood in here illegally. So they can get power back.

Of course we reduce the discussion to a difference in semantics, i.e. unimportant, but that is what I meant. As I see it, the Left doesn't identify with those in poverty at all. They rather USE those in poverty to keep themselves rich. You cannot get a leftist to see or admit--perhaps to even understand--how leftist policies create poverty (also victimhood, forms of racism and sexism, etc.,) make it a permanent thing, perpetuate it, entrench it into the culture. If they admitted that, they could not longer embrace the leftist doctrines.

President Trump certainly acknowledges that poverty exists, but he agreed with me and millions of others that the best way to get people out of poverty is to give them the incentive and opportunity to get themselves out of it. That means creating many more jobs they can qualify for and start building references, work ethic, skill sets, and experience so they can then qualify for better jobs and move themselves into the middle class. And I am pretty sure he understands that policies that discourage lifestyles and choices that are the best chance to escape poverty are bad. And he doesn't believe in making excuses for those who make bad choices but he calls out those bad choices out for what they are.

Which of course is a big part of why he was elected despite his own purported character flaws and less than exemplary conduct. Better to have somebody who sinned but gets it right in the end than the virtuous saint who hasn't a clue how to get it right.

 

[candycorn]

That is pretty much my position actually--I just am a lot wordier than you --except that I don't think Donald Trump is a despicable person. To me he is a flawed, imperfect person, as we all are to some extent. But I look at those that the Bible relates that God chose to do great things--not a perfect person in the lot. Some were deeply flawed. And I look at those figures in extra-Biblical and post-Biblical history who have literally changed the world for the better. All of those have been flawed, imperfect persons too, most who would never be deemed acceptable under modern political correctness criteria; some who would not be acceptable under most people's view of modern day morality. But the world benefited despite their 'despicableness.'

Donald Trump is often unlikable, is sometimes his own enemy, no doubt had done some despicable things. But I honestly think he knows what America most needs and is determined to do what he can to change the slow, steady downward spiral of decline that we have experienced for decades now. And whether his motive is his own legacy or a selfless love of America and Americans, I don't really care. He has offered a vision that I can embrace, and I for one am willing to do what I can to help him achieve it.

The world has often benefited and changed for the good by the vision of one person--somebody willing to step out of the status quo, i.e. one person with a different idea that caught on. Somebody once said that indeed no good significant change has ever happened any other way.

Also no bad significant change has ever happened any other way.

I am of the opinion that the President wants good change.

How many extramarital affairs would he have to have to become “Despicable”?
How many lies—not disagreements on policy but easily verifiable lies—does he have to tell before he becomes “Despicable”?

You'll have to cite the specific lie in order to know that. Has he wagged his finger in our faces declaring that the never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky and I never told anyone to lie? Did he go before the cameras to say again and again and again that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, etc. which was a bald faced lie and the President knew it?

We can go toe to toe on who lies the most or who is the more 'despicable', or we we can evaluate what the person is actually doing for the benefit of America and Americans.

Hmmm…I thought you were going to keep this focused on why you voted for this person or that person? Bringing up a President who hasn’t even held office in this century is cute but it violates your own standards; faint though they may be.

So I have to chronicle the lies that Trump has told? You are going to play dumb and pretend that you’re not aware of his tweets claiming that his win was a “landslide”, that he won the popular vote, that NK has denuclearized, that the G7 signed an agreement agreeing to increase their contributions… Are you going to play dumb and pretend that he didn’t have extramarital affairs?

Bringing up Bill Clinton is cute but the thread YOU started is about why you voted for whom you did. Bill Clinton wasn’t on the ballot.
So lets stop with the silly comparisons on that front. If you want to bring up Hillary’s lies fine.

I am pointing out the fallacy in the argument. That is all. I will discuss the actions of those who are serving the country, and I guarantee you Hillary's record is going to be a lot worse on that front than Trump's will be, but I won't trash the person and I ask that others do not also.

Based on nothing.

Here is an example of why trump’s lies and your accepting them is hurtful to the nation. The closed door meeting with his buddy Putin.

Here is what their ambassador said....

“Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, expressed hope Thursday that "the verbal agreements between Putin and Trump will be fulfilled" —“

What agreements? Not that I trust the Ambassador, or the President of either nation....but in the future if we reduce our arsenal, pull out of or back from NATO or any other move in Europe is it because of the agreements or whatever cover story is used?

The only thing we do know is that Trump is a liar and you know this as well.

A skilled diplomat or anyone who spent 8 seconds with one would know to not take such a meeting.

HRC wouldn’t have been put into that position

Yet another example surfaced recently after he and his attorney discussed hush payments to a Playboy playmate; this after denying he even knew her.

Sarah Sanders avoids denial of Trump affair with Karen McDougal, says instead "he's done nothing wrong"

 

[Foxfyre]

Before this thread is steered into another bash Trump (or bash Hillary or bash somebody) thread, or the real or manufactured scandal of the day--there are myriad other threads out there for that--I would appreciate focusing the discussion on the question presented in the OP:

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?

 

[Foxfyre]

And again for myself, my heart at this time is somewhat wanting equal application of the law applied to all, but mostly what I want is:

1. Economic stability, opportunity, prosperity.

2. The Supreme Court populated with Justices who value, understand, and appreciate the original intent of the Constitution and the law, and their duty to rule on that rather than effect social justice as they personally see that to be.

3. Border security and enforcement of the law.

4. Restoration of individual liberties wherever possible and reasonable, appreciation and pride in a great country, and a rejection of the politics of personal destruction along with a renewal of values that make us Americans the best that we can be.

So far only one national leader out there is offering anything close to that. And that is Donald Trump who has not disappointed so far whatever his personal flaws and failings.

 

[Circe]

Before this thread is steered into another bash Trump (or bash Hillary or bash somebody) thread, or the real or manufactured scandal of the day--there are myriad other threads out there for that--I would appreciate focusing the discussion on the question presented in the OP:

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?

I voted for Trump because he did, as you say, represent my deepest convictions and hopes. So far, so good, too.

1. I want to see tolerance from the left, an end to the victimizing of everyone they want to control and command. I want them to behave civilly. There's a hope.
2. I want the Supreme Court packed with five Trump picks, which I think is quite possible, even likely in 8 years if not 4.
3. I want the borders secured and I don't care how violently: the sooner the better.
4. I want us OUT of stupid brushfire wars all over the world.
5. I want the transvestite craziness to stop. I want in general the focus on sexual perversion to back up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Before this thread is steered into another bash Trump (or bash Hillary or bash somebody) thread, or the real or manufactured scandal of the day--there are myriad other threads out there for that--I would appreciate focusing the discussion on the question presented in the OP:

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?

I voted for Trump because he did, as you say, represent my deepest convictions and hopes. So far, so good, too.

1. I want to see tolerance from the left, an end to the victimizing of everyone they want to control and command. I want them to behave civilly. There's a hope.
2. I want the Supreme Court packed with five Trump picks, which I think is quite possible, even likely in 8 years if not 4.
3. I want the borders secured and I don't care how violently: the sooner the better.
4. I want us OUT of stupid brushfire wars all over the world.
5. I want the transvestite craziness to stop. I want in general the focus on sexual perversion to back up.

President Trump has little power in all but No. 4 there though. Based on his picks so far though, I have complete confidence that he will get the SCOTUS picks right so far as it is possible to do so. What opportunity he will have to make additional picks is up to the members on the high court or God.

I hope we are able to defend the border and enforce necessary laws without being unnecessarily cruel or violent. But it is vital that we do defend our border and enforce necessary laws, and we for the first time in a long time have a President who appreciates that.

I do think, if he is strong enough to hang in there against the unprecedented hatred and personal attacks constantly launched against him, his family, and anybody associated with him, what is left of the intellectually honest among the Left and the neverTrumpers on the Right will eventually come around and see the light. They will see the good that is being accomplished and that it is good for ALL including their favorite special 'victim' groups.

It is going to require all of us who do support the President's agenda to keep speaking out and defending that agenda. If we become weary or discouraged in doing so, it will all be lost.

 

[candycorn]

Before this thread is steered into another bash Trump (or bash Hillary or bash somebody) thread, or the real or manufactured scandal of the day--there are myriad other threads out there for that--I would appreciate focusing the discussion on the question presented in the OP:

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?

Sorry.

When you have an experienced politician who has served at the highest levels of the executive vs. a philandering, lying scumbag who has done nothing but serve himself; the choice for most people is clear. Which is why the former got so many more votes than the latter.

Better?

 

[Circe]

President Trump has little power in all but No. 4 there though. Based on his picks so far though, I have complete confidence that he will get the SCOTUS picks right so far as it is possible to do so. What opportunity he will have to make additional picks is up to the members on the high court or God.

I suppose you are right. But he CAN provide leadership in the other areas, and is doing so. I was fascinated by his leadership efforts with the NFL: they are meeting to hammer out some agreement about the players posturing and being obnoxious on the field, and Trump simply posted the world's most obvious solution, first fine 'em, then fire 'em, and I would wage serious money everyone on his side agrees with that. I think he could do that with the other issues. I think he doesn't need to with the perversion craziness; that may fall of its own idiocy. The homosexual lobby overreached there.

But yes, he is being incredibly orderly in following a very nice process re: the USSC. It's up to God, but if they go on in some numbers into their '90s, I will really be surprised. Some of them are seriously old, and we know Ginsburg is failing. And that Thomas has been floating his wish to retire; he's already over normal retirement age. Replacing him with a younger conservative who is able to TALK would be nice! A lot of conservative women don't like Clarence Thomas, and I am one of them, because of the Anita Hill thing. #MeToo. And the fact that he doesn't talk. IMO he's impaired. The sooner he is replaced, the happier I expect to be. I suppose it's a black slot, but still.

I do think, if he is strong enough to hang in there against the unprecedented hatred and personal attacks constantly launched against him, his family, and anybody associated with him, what is left of the intellectually honest among the Left and the neverTrumpers on the Right will eventually come around and see the light. They will see the good that is being accomplished and that it is good for ALL including their favorite special 'victim' groups.

I wish, but I doubt it. It didn't happen with Reagan, and he accomplished wonderful things and was graceful besides. I don't think it's about strong. We can already see he's strong: he has a whole schema, a whole process for dealing with perpetual attempts to destroy him. I guess he has known about this for many years.

It's about luck. And how faithful we are. They either will or won't assassinate Trump, and we either will or won't stay loyal. I think we will -- we've figured it out, the need for loyalty to a crucial ally. Obama did not get assassinated, and you know everyone suspected he would. Didn't happen, so maybe Trump won't either. If he does, I would expect serious trouble. That's what started the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the assassination of an important public figure. Huge war, Franco in power till 1975. I would advise against assassination, but we'll see.

It is going to require all of us who do support the President's agenda to keep speaking out and defending that agenda. If we become weary or discouraged in doing so, it will all be lost.

Boy, do I agree with that. No nitpicking, no criticism. Just be loyal. I am interested that you understand this issue as well as I do. I think a lot of people prize ideas over people, but that's not going to work in this situation.

 

[Picaro]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

 

[Claudette]

oWell I voted against Hitlery. I wouldn't vote that woman to shovel horseshit out of my horses stall.

The vote for Trump was a last minute decision. I voted for Johnson the last time around and was going to vote for him in 2016.

After thinking about it I decided to vote for Trump. He's not a politician and I liked what I'd hear from him so voted for him. I wanted to see if he kept his campaign promises and see how good a job he did. He ain't perfect but he's head and shoulders above Hitlery.

Its the best vote I ever cast.

 

[Foxfyre]

President Trump has little power in all but No. 4 there though. Based on his picks so far though, I have complete confidence that he will get the SCOTUS picks right so far as it is possible to do so. What opportunity he will have to make additional picks is up to the members on the high court or God.

I suppose you are right. But he CAN provide leadership in the other areas, and is doing so. I was fascinated by his leadership efforts with the NFL: they are meeting to hammer out some agreement about the players posturing and being obnoxious on the field, and Trump simply posted the world's most obvious solution, first fine 'em, then fire 'em, and I would wage serious money everyone on his side agrees with that. I think he could do that with the other issues. I think he doesn't need to with the perversion craziness; that may fall of its own idiocy. The homosexual lobby overreached there.

But yes, he is being incredibly orderly in following a very nice process re: the USSC. It's up to God, but if they go on in some numbers into their '90s, I will really be surprised. Some of them are seriously old, and we know Ginsburg is failing. And that Thomas has been floating his wish to retire; he's already over normal retirement age. Replacing him with a younger conservative who is able to TALK would be nice! A lot of conservative women don't like Clarence Thomas, and I am one of them, because of the Anita Hill thing. #MeToo. And the fact that he doesn't talk. IMO he's impaired. The sooner he is replaced, the happier I expect to be. I suppose it's a black slot, but still.

I do think, if he is strong enough to hang in there against the unprecedented hatred and personal attacks constantly launched against him, his family, and anybody associated with him, what is left of the intellectually honest among the Left and the neverTrumpers on the Right will eventually come around and see the light. They will see the good that is being accomplished and that it is good for ALL including their favorite special 'victim' groups.

I wish, but I doubt it. It didn't happen with Reagan, and he accomplished wonderful things and was graceful besides. I don't think it's about strong. We can already see he's strong: he has a whole schema, a whole process for dealing with perpetual attempts to destroy him. I guess he has known about this for many years.

It's about luck. And how faithful we are. They either will or won't assassinate Trump, and we either will or won't stay loyal. I think we will -- we've figured it out, the need for loyalty to a crucial ally. Obama did not get assassinated, and you know everyone suspected he would. Didn't happen, so maybe Trump won't either. If he does, I would expect serious trouble. That's what started the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the assassination of an important public figure. Huge war, Franco in power till 1975. I would advise against assassination, but we'll see.

It is going to require all of us who do support the President's agenda to keep speaking out and defending that agenda. If we become weary or discouraged in doing so, it will all be lost.

Boy, do I agree with that. No nitpicking, no criticism. Just be loyal. I am interested that you understand this issue as well as I do. I think a lot of people prize ideas over people, but that's not going to work in this situation.

What the Trump haters cannot or will not see/admit is that leadership is NOT the same thing as dictatorship. Giving an opinion, asking a question, making a suggestion, or proposing a possibility is NOT the same thing as giving an order that something will be done. But leadership is ability and willingness to step outside the box, refusing to capitulate to the status quo or precedent, and willingness to go for what might or will work instead of just repeating the same failed policies that put us in the declining situation we have been in.

I don't think anybody supporting the President's agenda harms him or anybody else by disagreeing with him and/or whatever proposal or action. I just wrote to him giving him encouragement in his agenda but objecting in no uncertain terms to the proposed military parade that I think is a waste of taxpayer money and will generate more resentment than anything positive. But there is a difference between disagreeing with him while supporting what we can support and the unbridled vicious blind hatred that most of the Left hurls at him no matter what he says or what he does. And just because we disagree with him on one thing does not negate all the other good things that are happening under his leadership.

He isn't Reagan but Reagan, however pleasant and Presidential, was just as hated by the Left--there just weren't so many on the radical Left back then and the media was still doing journalism instead of political propaganda. He is who he is and he isn't going to try to morph into what anybody else expects him to be. That triggers a lot of criticism, but it is also a hallmark of a true leader.

 

[Circe]

I don't think anybody supporting the President's agenda harms him or anybody else by disagreeing with him and/or whatever proposal or action. I just wrote to him giving him encouragement in his agenda but objecting in no uncertain terms to the proposed military parade that I think is a waste of taxpayer money and will generate more resentment than anything positive.

Oh, yeah, that 11th hour/11th day/11th month thing. I guess it's because it's exactly 100 years on that date. I studied WWI for several years (history just overwhelmed me -- I've branched out since) and I'm not sure but what the poppies and all are worn out. Most people literally don't know there WAS a WWI, and as many historians now feel there was just one Great War with a 21-year gap, I agree with that.

He isn't Reagan but Reagan, however pleasant and Presidential, was just as hated by the Left--there just weren't so many on the radical Left back then and the media was still doing journalism instead of political propaganda. He is who he is and he isn't going to try to morph into what anybody else expects him to be. That triggers a lot of criticism, but it is also a hallmark of a true leader.

I remember that --- the furious Left treating graceful, elegant Reagan just like they are treating Trump now. I've never forgotten that: the white-hot anger of the losers.

 

[oldsoul]

No nitpicking, no criticism. Just be loyal.

I can get on board with the nitpicking, but no criticism? No. I have, and will continue to criticise Trump where I believe he is wrong. Whether it be his policies, or his tactics, I will criticise wherever I see fit. On the other side, I will give him credit where it is due, such as his SC picks. I just hope that more and more people can see through the garbage, personal bias, and tribalism to do the same.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I did not vote for Trump as I don't see him as having the temperament for the job. I did not forte for Hillary as she is cynical, calculating and phony.

This was the election that finally put the notion of the lesser of two weevils to the test.

I simply did not vote.


In the future, however, I do not plan on voting on anybody who panders to identity groups. They either articulate positions relating to all Americans or they do not get my vote. I would love to see a moderate party gain traction, but as long as the democrats have nothing beyond a strategy calculated to piece together enough identity groups to get elected, I will consider myself a former democrat.

 

[Foxfyre]

No nitpicking, no criticism. Just be loyal.

I can get on board with the nitpicking, but no criticism? No. I have, and will continue to criticise Trump where I believe he is wrong. Whether it be his policies, or his tactics, I will criticise wherever I see fit. On the other side, I will give him credit where it is due, such as his SC picks. I just hope that more and more people can see through the garbage, personal bias, and tribalism to do the same.

And there you just accurately described yourself as a patriot and a responsible citizen. To elect any person who is going to be 100% right on everything just isn't going to happen. But to recognize when a person's focus is on the right things and to support that person when they get it right is in no way saying that the person is never wrong or should never be criticized.

But even criticism can be constructive and does not have to be hateful. I criticized President Obama much on his emphasis and policies on many, maybe even most things. But I tried hard not to be hateful toward him personally and I definitely gave him credit where credit was due.

Probably my worst characterization of him was calling him "His Arrogance" when he would say things that personally insulted me or that I found personally offensive. I still do use that one now and then so shoot me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

Indeed, Trump voters/supporters were those of us who were sick to death of the status quo and politicians who promised the sun, moon, and stars on the campaign trail, and then put most or all of those promises on the shelf once they were safely in office.

And those who pull those same promises off the shelf in this year's campaign or 2020 after ignoring them for the last two to six years won't be getting my vote either.

So far President Trump has not disappointed. And if he continues on the course he is on I suspect pretty much all of those who voted for him in 2016 and maybe some others who are appreciating his efforts will vote for him again in 2020 if he runs. He is absolutely the toughest and bravest person to be President in my lifetime--I can't imagine anybody else holding up under the non stop 24/7 pure cruel, dishonest, and unmitigated hatred poured out on him.

I am quite relieved that his agenda is one that I can support. But yes, if he should abandon that agenda, he won't be getting my vote in 2020 if he runs.