Why you have to work through his history? Do you not stay informed about the President?

Is it just me or did @raza just admit he is poorly informed when it comes to our President?

The history follows me. It is perceived as it arises. I do not write everything down as it arrives.

It is up to you to be specific for me to comment on each specific.

I’m not going to write a book for you.

Just say what a fault is and I will then give you my thoughts of that fault you have identified.

This is basic principle.

If you have nothing, so be it.

I very specifically want to know why you need me to go first, when I asked for your thoughts.

You have said Trump makes mistakes. I said it is likely.

You want me to comment on every mistake you conceive him to have made without specifying each mistake.

If you cannot list then maybe it is difficult for you to find. I am sure I have disagreed with you on many things about Trump going back over weeks so many things may have already been covered.

I shall paraphrase this conversation for you.

1. You suggested I think Trump never makes a mistake.


2. I said it is likely he does.

3. You want me to list them.

4. It isn’t my job to compose a list FOR YOU and then for me to comment on them.

4. I say it is reasonable that you identify a mistake you perceive so that I can comment.

5. I am open to comment upon a mistake YOU identify.

I think I am being fair and reasonable.

Rudy Giulliani said Cohen is a "pathological liar."

“I expected something like this from Cohen, he’s been lying all week. He’s been lying for years,”

Why did our beloved, law-abiding president have a pathological liar working for him? What is the positive spin on it?

90 What about Giuliani's history makes you think he can think two moves ahead?

I don't think Rudy's going rogue here- Trump wants Cohen painted as a liar. Team Trump considers this the lesser of two evils. The greater evil is that Trump lied about having knowledge of the infamous meeting. It remains to be seen if Cohen's allegation will be corraborated, but this reality show is getting interesting.

I think these types of reactions are reflexive not reflective. There's so many ways to play this other than how they did : "It's clear Michael is under a lot of stress and he is now lying under duress about things that never happened just to satisfy Mueller's and his 13 angry Democrats' agenda. Sad!"

E.g., Trump's team are tools.

1. "would normally be considered as political errors?"

What are "normal" political errors? Do you have a list for comparison? — raza

I don't need to provide a list, and I shouldn't have to explain to you the kind of things which are normally considered to be political errors during a presidential term. Use your head. A failure to meet a goal, a strategy that backfires, an action which lowers your approval rating, or harms your chances of reelection, or damages your reputation or the reputation of your party, or damages key international relations, or harms the economy, or loses you public support, or results in widespread condemnation, and so on, and so forth.

2."he remain in his position in spite of the backlash"

"Backlash", to me, simply means there are those that disagree but with an emotional emphasis. Being emotional is itself a very used tool in politics and political debate (feigned or exaggerated for effect is common). — raza

Instead of reading into that term a personal meaning which is convenient for your apologetics, try using a dictionary: "a strong negative reaction by a large number of people to a social or political development". That's all I meant.

3. The failed Muslim ban?

Failed? It was eventually changed to Executive Order 13769. Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. — raza

Yes, failed. He has failed to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, as he said during the 2016 presidential campaign. He also had failures along the road which lead to the Supreme Court's narrow ruling (5 - 4) on the final version of his executive order, which is not the Muslim ban he spoke of during his campaign. His first executive order failed and was reversed and he then had to revoke and replace the original.

And I don't care about your Obama red herring. This isn't about him, it's about Trump.

4. The steel and aluminium tariffs?

Time may tell how this will pan out. — raza

Ha! That's the best you can come up with? I refer you, for example, to what The Economist has said about it. I quoted an article earlier on in this discussion.

5. Moving the US embassy?

Many previous presidents have said they would do this, including Obama, and then did not. Obama voiced his opinion that he recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capitol but back his opinion in actuality. Weak, maybe? — raza

Human lives, peace, and stability are much more important than whether or not a president will appear weak for not sticking to his word or following opinion with action. Trump knowingly endangered lives and the stability of the region effected. He cost lives by going ahead with it. It is better that Obama exercised restraint, even if it made him look weak.

6. Appearing weak and manipulated by Putin?

"Appearances". Yours and others opinion. You forget or did not know of H. Clinton special moments with Putin or Obama caught on a hot mic leaning toward Russian ambassador saying he will be able to discuss things with Putin after the (2012) election? How did that "appear"? Or is it that mainstream media tried hard to not make it "appear"? — raza

It is the understanable and widespread opinion of many, many, people, and for obvious reasons. He has a track record of this kind of behaviour like no one who has come before him.

And please stop with the red herrings. They are not a valid argument. This isn't about Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. Whether or not they have similarly appeared weak is irrelevant to whether or not Trump has appeared weak. This is about Donald Trump.

7. "I would love to hear your apologetics on how these are in fact heroic acts worthy of the greatest admiration."

I never said I perceived Trump as a hero or that I greatly admired him. Was that question sophism, perhaps, or did you just interpret something wrongly - an honest mistake? — raza

It was sarcasm.

I don't need to provide a list, and I shouldn't have to explain to you the kind of things which are normally considered to be political errors during a presidential term. Use your head. A failure to meet a goal, a strategy that backfires, an action which lowers your approval rating, or harms your chances of reelection, or damages your reputation or the reputation of your party, or damages key international relations, or harms the economy, or loses you public support, or results in widespread condemnation, and so on, and so fort — Sapientia

So, a description of apparently normal “errors”. Sounds like every presidency.

Yes, failed. He has failed to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, as he said during the 2016 presidential campaign. He also had failures along the road which lead to the Supreme Court's narrow ruling (5 - 4) on the final version of his executive order, which is not the Muslim ban he spoke of during his campaign. His first executive order failed and was reversed and he then had to revoke and replace the original. — Sapientia

Normal, however, that every president attempts to impose an election edict and processes work against them.

If one doesn’t ever try then that same one never does anything. Might as well stay in bed.

Sounds like you expect Superman to come along.

Ha! That's the best you can come up with? I refer you, for example, to what The Economist has said about it. I quoted an article earlier on in this discussion — Sapientia

Everyone speculates.

Human lives, peace, and stability are much more important than whether or not a president will appear weak for not sticking to his word or following opinion with action. Trump knowingly endangered lives and the stability of the region effected. He cost lives by going ahead with it. It is better that Obama exercised restraint, even if it made him look weak — Sapientia

Better to appear weak and be weak? Ok, got that. A contrast to Superman now. This is getting to be about schizophrenia.

And please stop with the red herrings. They are not a valid argument. This isn't about Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. Whether or not they have similarly appeared weak is irrelevant to whether or not Trump has appeared weak. This is about Donald Trump — Sapientia

Trump should not be weak towards those who make up all the Russia BS.

Check how the Browder inspired Magnitsky Act was a fraud.

https://youtu.be/njzZcdoLP6c

It was sarcasm. — Sapientia

I didn’t want to immediately assume you were being a knob.

Yeah, but it ain't trickling down? Why?

That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls.

There's not much to trickle down, it's a misleading figure. Listen, we had a GDP blip in Ireland that showed a 26% growth rate in 2015! Beat that Trump! Our politicians were a bit more restrained in their celebrations though as no-one was buying it.

Aww, shucks...

Reality is never as exciting as Trump's fantasy world :
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-touted-as-historic-by-trump-is-totally-standard/

If the GDP, productivity, stock value, unemployment etc. continue to do better alongside stagnant or falling wages, and increased wealth inequality, then lo and behold, we have a pretty compelling argument for socialism.

But trickle down!!!

But trickle down!!! — Posty McPostface

:fear:

That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls.

Don't overlook the possibility of higher GDP growth this year, even if it's not 4.1%. Lower taxes have historically been stimulative. The problem is that this growth is paid for by running up more debt, and this debt will be unsustainable because deficits have grown (increasing the debt) and interest on the national debt rises with interest rates. Interest on the debt will eventually overwhelm the budget at this rate. This is a booby trap for the next (Democratic) president, who will unavoidably have to raise taxes, which will be a drag on the economy.

Yes, agree with all that. That's the strategy here. Slash taxes for the wealthy to improve GDP figures in the short to medium term (though still won't be anywhere near four per cent) while creating a huge unsustainable debt problem for whoever comes later, who will have to take hard decisions about how to deal with it. Absolutely cynical, self-serving and destructive economics.

Yeah, but it ain't trickling down? Why? — Posty McPostface

Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc.

That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls. — Baden

You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP.

Although to be fair - economic crisis doesn't come from lack of GDP growth, but rather from the failure of (a few) important and big players. Economic crisis originates with BANKS for the most part. If we got rid of banks, we would have no more crisis. Banks are the virus in the economic system. It is the greed of bankers which takes us from crisis to crisis. Banking is usury, and should be outlawed.

Banks need crisis. They loan to the entrepreneur, and the crisis is the opportunity to appropriate the value that the entrepreneur produced. And when banks are in bed with the state, as they always are, then they don't even have to worry about themselves - the state will finance them, if needed, so that they can hoard all the wealth. Banking IS the redistribution of wealth from the poor (the taxpayers) and the wealth creators (entrepreneurs) to the capitalists. Capitalism is the economic system where bankers (indeed, owners of capital) always come out on top.