Trump is the same man-child he was at seven as he was at seventy:
“Along the way, he failed to develop the qualities of character that most of us do in the natural course of growing up to a greater or lesser extent – honesty, empathy, generosity, reflectiveness, the capacity to delay gratification and appreciate or subtlety and nuance, and above all a conscience, an inner sense of right and wrong,” the writer said.
This rings very true to me, based on my own external observations.
But Obama is a man-child in his own way, as well. Another similarity between the two.
In the words of the renowned psychologist Paul Reubens, “I know you are but what am I?”
“It was during these conversations that I realized I couldn’t take anything that he told me at face value.”
Shades of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who would convince others that he absolutely agreed with them while promising nothing, and delivering the opposite.
Both Obama and Trump can be described by Lloyd George’s axiom: “A young man who isn’t a socialist hasn’t got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn’t got a head.”
Trump may not have a heart, but Obama still has no head.
The West was built by hard-hearted men who did the right thing without regard for feelz. It’s dying because they’ve been replaced by metrosexuals who trigger and run to their safe space any time reality intrudes.
Neither Obama nor Trump could reasonably be described as socialists.
Obama could be. He ran as a socialist in the 90s. The fact that he knew he couldn’t implement all the socialism he wanted doesn’t make him not a socialist.
If Obama advocated that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by the state I would agree then that Obama was a socialist, perhaps you could provide evidence that at some stage that is what he has advocated.
That’s communism, not socialism. Though he was in fact raised by communists, and sought out Marxists in college, by his own admission. I’m amused that you believe a lying politician about his actual political beliefs.
Even Obama is too right-wing for most of us in Europe. Honestly I did not find much difference in practice between his policies and those of either Bush Jr. or Mitt Romney.
“Even Obama is too right-wing for most of us in Europe.”
Sucks to be you. There’s a reason that the US is still on its first constitution at 228 years and counting. What’s France on, her fifth in the same time frame?
The US Constitution is 7200 words. The EU’s is 76,000.
Guess which one will still be around in 2025?
Communism is socialist economics under a political system controlled by the proletariat. Socialists generally support democratic systems but still support government ownership over private ownership of the means of production.
I’m amused that you’ve got this obsession over a past politician.
His policies continue to damage the Republic.
@CapitalistRoader:
When you have a Constitution as short as yours it’s little wonder that it hasn’t changed much in time. Then again if you continue adding amendments to it eventually you’ll get there.
I believe that England has had the Magna Carta for longer than that.
@CapitalistRoader:
I know a large portion of the socialist movement in Europe was co-opted by the Marxists at one time. But that hasn’t been true for quite a while. Most of them are basically Social Democrats. Or even Third Way which are basically neoliberals. I mean, take the UK, they privatized the Post Office (Royal Mail) and British Rail. In France the water supply is private in cities like Lyon.
I’m a Social Democrat. So I think natural monopolies, like the public water supply, should be controlled by State. I think that railroads, highways, and the electric grid should be owned by the state. Private operators can provide service over the public railroads and highways, etc.
I believe that England has had the Magna Carta for longer than that.
The Magna Carta is an historical document, that in reality only lasted a few years. It’s the origin of English Common Law, but not the current basis for it.
Godzilla, the Magna Carta was a good start and is in part the basis of the US Constitution. But I still think the US Constitution is superior from an individual freedom perspective than the our English-speaking cousins’ documents/precedents. Subotai Bahadur over at Chicago Boyz makes that case:
“In Canada, the purpose of the Canadian Constitution [in both its written and unwritten parts as codified in the Constitution Act of 1982 is to allow freedom except when the government wants to restrict it. There are no absolutes, and like in Britain, the Parliament can do anything. It is a different viewpoint than ours.
The UK and Canada views the government as the guardian ad litem for the people who are viewed as legally incompetent and in their custody. The American view in the Constitution as written is that the government is the employee, agent [with revocable agency], and servant of the people who are competent to determine their own fate. Part of the problem we face today, is that both major parties have adopted the UK/Canadian view with that additional perk of being able to line their pockets and be above the law completely. That view is not agreed to by the American people, or at least not all of them, and the issue is currently in dispute.”
This famous European wrote something similar almost 200 years ago which I think describes the EU Constitution perfectly:
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”
Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’ (1835)
The US Constitution has held America back. If you believe in democracy you should believe that the laws that govern a country should be molded by the living, not by those that are long dead.
What nonsense. The Constitution has been amended many times. If there are problems with it (in the minds of Americans, not ignorant Kiwis) it will be updated again
What’s France on, her fifth in the same time frame?
A man walks into a bookstore and asks for a copy of the French Constitution. The clerk replies, “I’m sorry sir, we don’t sell periodicals.”
Meanwhile, the sheep of England, tended by the soft fascism of the government and the BBC, continue to decline into a politically correct docility. The state deprives the citizens of yet more freedom and stifles any innovation and creativity.
What a terrible time to live in England. The achievements of the 18th and 19th centuries are now seen as just colonialism that stole from the rest of the world.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/10/27/crime-soaring-arrests-fall-48-per-cent-police-focus-hate-crime/
Godzilla: “I mean, take the UK, they privatized the Post Office (Royal Mail) and British Rail.”
No they did not.
Royal Mail PLC is still 100% government owned. It was established to raise money on the markets for the Post Office and get round EU state-aid regulations. There was never any intention of selling shares to the public.
And they renationalized the infrastructure side of what used to be British Rail. Without compensation to its legal owners too, which is more than Atlee dared.
All while raising the tax burden from 38% to over 50% by the end, and turning the Major government’s surplus into a whacking great deficit.
The Blair administration’s “crypto-Tory” reptutation is thoroughly undeserved. More’s the pity.
Obama was more along the line of the fascist wing of the socialist ideology. He wanted the state to control businesses and the state to be controlled by cultural and economic marxists.
Plus he had the dream of his father which is 100% taxation where they give out whatever they determine everybody ‘needs.’
And your dislike of Trump again colors your thoughts. This writer got a hell of a good deal from Trump to write the book, but now donates to illegal immigrants and stabs Trump in the back. Just another lying progressive.
You don’t have to give the man a free pass on everything but it’s pretty exciting to see him actually draining the swamp.
I don’t see him draining the swamp. I will give him credit for deregulating and judicial appointments, but he remains ADSD, childish and petulant. If he was draining the swamp, he’d can Sessions and hire someone who will bring the Justice Department and FBI to heel.
I don’t see him draining the swamp.
Speaking of life lessons as you grow up, I learned this one from a janitor who said, “I know my boss looks at certain spots. If those are clean he assumes everything else is as well.”
You don’t see because you’ve chosen your spots and refuse to see beyond them. We agree about replacing people in the DOJ and FBI but it’s not that simple (as govt. tends to make it.) Yet draining the swamp, where feasible, is exactly what Trump has been doing continuously since taking office.
Keep in mind we are living under a new rule of law… It’s illegal because Trump wants to do it. Even if the supreme court agrees with Trump, they can still throw a wrench in the machinery even with cases that fail.
Almost every 70 yo can be described as a 7 yo! I’ve worked for enough of them.
It is very simple to replace both the Attorney General and the head of the FBI, or at least to fire them. Giving a $300M contract to a two-person company to repair the grid in Puerto Rico that just happens to be connected to the Secretary of the Interior is not draining the swamp. As he was in business, as president, the corrupt and amoral Donald Trump is filling it, not draining it. But I’m still glad she lost.
Well, it’s not like he wasn’t associated with construction companies and mobster union bosses while in NY…
“he remains AD[H]D, childish and petulant.”
Who cares? I’d take that any day over 0bama’s fake El Suave schtick.
So would I. But why can’t I find both terrible?
You certainly may. I, generally, try not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
The people who have made these claims after interacting with Trump have been upset that he didn’t pay enough attention to them. What makes them so important? It is often easy enough to get what people are saying and understand the information they are relating without spending hours and hours with them.
A busy person, like a CEO or a President, has to move quickly from one task to the next. Its called work. A person upset they didn’t get as much time as they want doesn’t really care about the boss’s opportunity cost in spending more time with them.
The writer’s sole purpose in life at this point, was to write this book. It was the most important thing he had ever done. So for him the meetings were very important. For Trump, any one meeting with him was just one interaction in a day filled with other more pressing interactions.
The people who have made these claims after interacting with Trump have been upset that he didn’t pay enough attention to them. What makes them so important? It is often easy enough to get what people are saying and understand the information they are relating without spending hours and hours with them.
That is not the impression that I get from their complaints. I get the impression that it’s hard to get his attention long enough to explain anything to him in which he isn’t interested, and that (to coin a phrase) he’s “a f**king moron.” That is the impression that I get without having met him. I suppose there’s some benefit to pretending to be ignorant and stupid, and it’s certainly easier for a smart person to do that than the other way around, but I don’t really buy it.
it’s hard to get his attention long enough to explain anything to him in which he isn’t interested
You’ve just described all of mankind and more so any of it’s more successful members.
People that always seem interested are acting. People that actually are interested are either unintelligent or you’ve given them a reason to believe you have information they don’t already know.
How much of your life is wasted by people trying to explain things to you that you already know? Do you think you’re the only one?
How much of your life is wasted by people trying to explain things to you that you already know?
I don’t know, but that has nothing to do with the problem with Trump.
It has everything to do with Trump because we’re talking about impressions, not some hard fact. Trump seems uninterested. There are many potential reasons, including it’s not true or it doesn’t require his full focus when there’s little to be interested in. Immediately jumping to a negative conclusion is indicative of bias. Especially when repeated over and over.
As for not paying or delaying payments… as a vendor that would be annoying, but as a taxpayer I want a guy who doesn’t immediately hand out my money to anybody that comes along claiming I owe them.
there’s some benefit to pretending to be ignorant and stupid
Being portrayed one way by the DNC media isn’t the same as being that way. How many GOP Presidents have been portrayed as dumb?
Now more than ever, it is important to be able to decipher the motives of the people shaping your perceptions. Since none of us know Trump, our perceptions are heavily influenced by the media, which overwhelmingly hate him, support black shirts, and constantly fabricate stories.
There have been a number of articles with people saying, “He isn’t anything like I was told he was like.”
Trump isn’t a genius and has made some bad decisions but he has also been right about a lot of stuff too.
My opinion has nothing to do with how the media portray him, and it is not based on anything other than personally observing Trump’s public behavior. He never does anything to disabuse me of it.
Unless you are in the room with Trump and Tillerson or watch Trump’s speeches and what not in uncut format, that claim can’t be entirely true. But I do accept that you sincerely believe Trump is an idiot, a con man, has +10 jerkiness, is uninterested in serious issues, and is generally incompetent.
I agree with some of that. Trump has made some bad decisions on personnel, hasn’t been the “deal maker” with congress, and while doing great things shrinking regulations and reining in the federal government, they are all things that can be undone by the next President.
Trump’s behavior has certainly been an impediment with McCain and other congresspeople but I am not certain being nicer to McCain during the election would mean he voted any differently today. But with other’s that might not be the case.
He never does anything to disabuse me of it.
By anything… would that include when the media mocks him and he’s later proved to be right. I’ve lost count to how many times that’s happened and it’s not little things.
It makes you wonder what the Watergate fuss was all about. Crimes against Trump by Hillary and Obama should get them prison. Trump’s biggest crime is trying to do what he promised the voters. Not because he’s inept (proved by the fact that congress has been stabbing the voters in the back for decades.)
By anything… would that include when the media mocks him and he’s later proved to be right. I’ve lost count to how many times that’s happened and it’s not little things.
Saying that he’s occasionally smarter than the media is such a low bar as to be meaningless.
The fifty fifty split sure seems to fly in the face of Trump had to win everything and was just a giant dbag without empathy, generosity, or the ability to delay gratification. The book itself was an exercise in delaying gratification and generosity.
The writer is the one who comes off as without empathy. The book was a side deal from Trump’s main business. Why would Trump’s attention not be constantly pulled away to deal with his work? The writer came off as thinking he was the center of the universe but really, he was just a small part of it.
This IS on topic:
Connect the dots… the media isn’t just lying.
From the linked article ““Even at 70 when his own self feels at risk, he will slap down Carmen Cruz, the struggling mayor of San Juan, in order lift himself up…”
I call BS. Cruz’ story was different from most of the other mayors and the governor of PR. Nearly every national leader has a personality driven by various needs or insecurities. Trump is typical in that regard in spite of the host’s Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The commenters called BS on that, too. Cruz attacked Trump first, and other people, including FEMA, said Cruz was grandstanding.
“WE ARE DYING HERE” in front of tons of water that striking truck drivers won’t deliver. You can’t blame that on Trump.
Yes, I am sick and tired of the rule that anyone can say anything about a Republican but if they respond, the response is out of bounds and means the Republican is insane or some other nonsense.
In the real world, people respond to attacks and insults.
The issue isn’t that they respond, a lot of people were frustrated at the wimpiness of Bush and others, but it would be nice if the response was clever, not crude and boorish. And some things aren’t worthy of a response, but there is nothing like that to Donald J. Trump.
So there you have it, plainly stated. You don’t like Trump’s style. So you ignore the substance your guests bring out every time you denounce Trump.
You don’t like Trump’s style.
It’s not a matter of “style.” I don’t like the fact that he is a childish, petulant, miserable excuse for a human being, whose antics are counterproductive to his stated goals and (in many cases, false) promises to his acolytes.
he is a childish, petulant, miserable excuse for a human being, whose antics are counterproductive to his stated goals
Assume we agree. None of that is substance.
You do know his supporters groan at his antics but have a valid reason for ignoring them… because of the substance you are ignoring.
He is the leader of a party, like it or not. The reason a party exists is to get things done. Those that don’t support the party (which means supporting the president.) are not only working against themselves but against the people that voted him in office.
Which is why dismissing the voters as deplorable is an even bigger crime. Congress that doesn’t support the president, doesn’t support the American voters. This will lead to more Trumps, not less.
whose antics are counterproductive to his stated goals
Sometimes they are. But many times we have seen him mocked for tweeting only to find out later Trump was right. Trump could stop tweeting but that wouldn’t stop people complaining, so why change his behavior?
The tweets get around the DNC media and get them to go off the rails further destroying their credibility. To note a similarity with Obama, the tweets are like the Dense Pack and Stray Voltage strategies. Only instead of the media being distracted by too many illegal actions to focus on any single one, there is no law breaking, just tweets.
I’d much prefer a President who didn’t act like a jerk but I’d also prefer Democrats not to be even bigger jerks. We can’t have rules that say only Democrats get to be the jerks and their victims have to take it in silence.
Again, I don’t propose that people take it in silence. I certainly don’t. But I at least attempt to not take it in childish stupidity.
I used to hate James Woods. I say this as preamble to my point. He always played such nasty characters in the movies, and my antipathy extended to him personally. But, he’s an actor. His part was to play SOBs, and he played them very well.
I’ve taken to following his twitter feed nowadays. Not only is he very likable and clear headed, but he is compassionate towards those who deserve compassion and, dare I say it, brave and forthright.
Trump is an actor. He has a public and a private persona. You should not assume the two are the same. His public tactics are tailored to getting what he wants. They are textbook, from The Art of War to Winning by Intimidation. His goal is not to be liked, but to succeed.
From my vantage point, he is succeeding. He is like the captain of a cumbersome, immense vessel. It takes a long time to redirect the momentum of this lumbering barge heading toward the shoals, but he is doing so.
He likes to win. Some of you may recall this column from back in the day. Judging by his public persona, one might expect him to have been incensed by being played. But, he wasn’t. “Ya got me, Sign Lady,” was his response to being beaten. No hard feelings. It’s just business.
So, all the touchy-feely types can mewl all they like about this uncouth loudmouth. It doesn’t matter. It’s not really him. He’s just playing a part. And, he’s winning.
PS: I wonder if Larry Linville was actually a decent guy in person. Must’ve been tough playing that role. How many people reacted to him as though he were Frank Burns?
Have you noticed that right leaning people in Hollywood get typecast to play certain types of characters? If you haven’t, just keep an eye out for the type of roles they are given.
Even better is when a buffoon conservative is played by an ultra liberal – Archie Bunker –
bart, Larry Linville had some interests similar to most of those who comment here:(From Wikipedia)Linville was born in Ojai, California, the son of Fay Pauline (née Kennedy) and Harry Lavon Linville.[2] Raised in Sacramento, he attended El Camino High School[3] (Class of 1957) and later studied aeronautical engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder before applying for a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in London.
I know he once built an Experimental flying wing sailplane.
With fuzzy pink slippers Mike.
It was written up in Soaring magazine back in the mid 1970’s.
I think he means this:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/mash/images/c/c0/Klinger-trial_of_Henry_Blake.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150917144931
“Schwartz argued that Trump sees the world as coming after Trump.”
If Trump has known how much the world will come after him, he probably would have passed on idea of running for President.
And voters voted for him because he seemed crazy enough to be that someone who would fight.
Or Trump is and was the destructor who summoned by the political class.
Schwartz said the bankers and lawyers Trump dealt with for various deals eventually became “primary source material” for the book to “fill in the details” that Trump would not provide.
It was during these conversations that I realized I couldn’t take anything that he told me at face value.
By the author’s own admission, he didn’t know Trump very well. The book was about business but decades later, the author, sad about Hillary losing, seems to report all of his lessons learned about Trump were psychological.
Facts, to Trump, are whatever he deems to be on any given day. And when he is challenged, as you’ve seen over and over again, he doubles down even if what he’s just said in incontrovertibly false.
So pretty much like every other human. Are we supposed to go through life thinking everything we know is wrong? The author frames this as Trump thinking things are true is a flaw but when he changes his views on those things, this is also wrong. Rather convenient that no matter what, Trump is wrong lol.
I’d take everything this writer says with many grains of salt. He is clearly emotional about Hillary losing and will say anything regardless of it veracity. It is very transparent, people who fall for it are just victims of confirmation bias because they want to believe.
I find his use of the exclamation point gratuitous and un-presidential. Sad!
There is precedent.
“You must always remember that the president is about six.”—Cecil Spring Rice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Spring_Rice
I read the primary post and Rand’s comments to others here, and my takeaway is: Rand thinks Trump is a poopie-head, and wants us to think Rand isn’t childish.
whose antics are counterproductive to his stated goals
In recent months, I’ve watched the GOP Congress fail to pass Obamacare reform, much less repeal, despite being a stated goal. The GOP Congress now is struggling with Tax reform, despite being a state goal. The GOP has for decades talked about fixing border security, until Trump ran on this and won. And I’ll give a nod to DNC’s supposed protection of women from some war on them, while pocketing money from Harvey Weinstein.
Whose antics are more counterproductive to his stated goals: Trump or John McCain?
But those things were ignored so as to focus on stuff like comments made yo one miserable excuse for a human being mayor in Puerto Rico. So what was Trump’s stated goal in Puerto Rico? To provide aid and help the state rebuild. What did Trump do? He sent 2 amphibious multipurpose assault ships that provided helicopter and dock space for the delivery of goods. What did the mayor do? She walked out into the mass of delivered goods and claimed that none arrived. But hey, she did manage to find resources for a silk screening operation to provide her cheeky shirts while her citizens receive no help from her.
The fact that I think Trump is terrible doesn’t mean that I don’t think others aren’t. Why is it that if I criticize Trump, it’s illogically taken as praise of (e.g.) John McCain or the mayor of San Juan?
I’m just asking that Trump be a little less terrible, and I understand that it’s too big an ask.
it’s illogically taken as praise of (e.g.) John McCain or the mayor of San Juan?
Not at all a valid conclusion. You will note the person you replied to was not praising either. Why bring them up? To compare how Trump is treated to others. It has nothing to do with you praising others as you suggest.
Trump has flaws. Known actual flaws. Known not just by you so that there is some need to explain them to everyone else who must be retards for not seeing them. What’s missing is perspective.
About when a kid get to be a teenager they often become really annoying. How? They find a flaw and like a dog with a bone they just won’t let go. I did it with my stepdad. My stepson did it with me. It’s always about some stupid thing that does not matter.
Trump has given some really good speeches. But with the right bias, they can be ignored as something written by others for him to read. Then he can follow through, but we already know he isn’t genuine so we can ignore that too. Then he continues to make progress, but it’s never fast enough and we know we could get more done though we’ve never had to face the opposition he does.
Confirming bias is easy.
You will note the person you replied to was not praising either. Why bring them up?
I didn’t bring them up, he did.
I did bring them up, but I never stated nor suggested you were praising McCain. My point this time, and last time I commented here in regards to Jonah Goldberg, write silly things like this: “whose antics are counterproductive to his stated goals” as if only Trump, particularly in the GOP, does this. And from my view, Trump has been very productive in his stated goals, and where he hasn’t it is primarily because various GOP Congressional candidates betrayed their voters.
Erick Erickson gets it.
You can whine about Trump’s behavior, but McConnell, McCain, Flake, others are screwing us with a smile you seem to find less offensive, or at least worthy of comment. Trump is accomplishing more of the things I wanted a Republican President to accomplish than Bush; and more than what the GOP Congress has done. And I’m not so sure about the counterproductive. Seems Trump was right when he claimed he was wiretapped during the election, yet he was called an idiot for making such a suggestion. Trump was also right about his AG not stepping up as was expected.
I also recall the pages of this blog touting the smoking gun of Trump’s collusion with Russia when his son met with a Russian for oppo research; but I haven’t seen the post discussing the revelation that Hillary paid a former British Intelligence officer to work with Russian agencies to develop oppo research on Trump. I thought at the time, when did it become illegal to pay for oppo research from anybody? Apparently that’s the conclusion others seem to have now when they can’t attack Trump with such an issue.
Trump was also right about his AG not stepping up as was expected.
I’m not happy about that, either. And what has Trump done about it?
It is very clear that Hillary was much more in collusion with the Russians, but my complaints with Trump haven’t been about collusion with the Russians, and I have stated repeatedly that I’m happy that she lost. That doesn’t mean that I have to be happy that he won. I continue to wish we’d had better candidates, and I continue to hope we will have at least one better candidate in 2020.
Seems Trump was right when he claimed he was wiretapped during the election, yet he was called an idiot for making such a suggestion.
This is cherry picking, and straw man. If I’d said Trump was wrong about everything, you (and Ken) might have a point. But I didn’t. So you don’t.
I continue to hope we will have at least one better candidate in 2020.
You’re the girl at the prom with the right nice guy date wishing you were with the abusive football hero that is guaranteed to disappoint you.
We didn’t really know what would happen before Trump was elected. Now we know his greatest value has been exposing all the fraud of those that are supposed to support their party leadership.
If you said 2024, we could have ALL supported your position. But you didn’t and at the same time clarified your problem… you don’t seem to understand the point of the party system. It’s not about ideology. Members can have any diverse ideology they like. It’s all about supporting the leader to get things done. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make any difference what party a person was in.
You’re the girl at the prom with the right nice guy date wishing you were with the abusive football hero that is guaranteed to disappoint you.
This is one of stupidest similes I’ve ever seen.
Leland, when you use any single short word as a link it’s easy to miss. I did catch it on my second look and reading it now.
This is one of stupidest similes I’ve ever seen.
True, but when you put Cruz as savior I’ve got to wonder what yer smokin’. Can you not see the full picture? Do you not understand you’re telling us what we already know and expecting it to sway opinion? Where is the logic in that?
You do realize you’re demonstrating the exact same blindness as the media? We understand why they don’t get it, but you’re infinitely smarter than they are. We already know you don’t like Trump. If that’s all you have you’re not even in the game.
True, but when you put Cruz as savior I’ve got to wonder what yer smokin’.
I didn’t “put out Cruz as savior.”
Please stop flooding my comments section with stupidity.
I have more than not liking Trump. But I have no reason to like Trump, and he rarely attempts to give me one. I really don’t understand why my dislike of the creature upsets you so to the point of irrationality.
I have no reason to like Trump
Yes you do. He’s accomplishing the things you’ve argued for and is committed to doing more of the same. Separate that from your dislike of the man and you should be his biggest cheer leader.
Then you’d be able to point out his flaws with more authority.
Separate that from your dislike of the man and you should be his biggest cheer leader.
I’ve already pointed out the useful things that he’s done. It doesn’t mean that I have to blindly worship him. And I will continue to not do so, to the continuing disappointment of his worshipful acolytes.
Yes you do. He’s accomplishing the things you’ve argued for and is committed to doing more of the same. Separate that from your dislike of the man and you should be his biggest cheer leader.
Those are reasons to be glad that he is president rather than her. They are not reasons to like him.
Then you’d be able to point out his flaws with more authority.
I have much more than sufficient authority to point out his multiple flaws. And you have zero authority to tell me what authority I have.
The US Constitution has held America back. If you believe in democracy you should believe that the laws that govern a country should be molded by the living, not by those that are long dead
Utter bilge. You don’t understand the point of the Constitution, nor do you understand Federalism.