Marcus Tullius Cicero on... Donald Trump?

[trdsf]

No, the fact is you cannot answer the simple question.  You dishonestly latch on to things he had nothing to do with other than scribbling his name on.  You hide behind a patently unreasonable definition of policymaking.  You do everything you can to obscure the fact that you have not and cannot answer the question put.

You know you can't, because the litany of actual Trump actions is a disgrace to civilization.  What has he actually done?  Let's see... providing cover for Nazi murderers in the streets of Charlottesville, pardoning a bigoted sheriff, threatening nuclear war with the only head of state that might be less sane than he himself?

Yeah, I can see why you don't want to answer.

Thanks for playing.  We're done here.

[Gilgamesh]

No, the fact is you cannot answer the simple question.  You dishonestly latch on to things he had nothing to do with other than scribbling his name on.  You hide behind a patently unreasonable definition of policymaking.  You do everything you can to obscure the fact that you have not and cannot answer the question put.

Right. That's all fine, though. Since this is a discussion board, and everything is recorded in text, one can see that I did in fact answer the question. many times - precisely because your absurd position called for it to be answered many times. Here, I'll answer it again:

The question:"Can you share anything positive Trump has done?"

My answer: He's signed these bills into legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/321

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/255

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/657

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1094

You hide behind a patently unreasonable definition of policymaking

Strawman. There has been 0 debate about what constitutes policymaking. You introduced that argument against yourself and have been going at it with yourself for a whole page now. You're equivocating. Again.

The conversation has only been:

CL: What good has trump done?
Me: Here's some good bills he's signed into policy.
You: Nope, signing bills isn't an action.

No wonder you are equivocating. You cannot defend this position. And after this you'll just attempt to bury it again with equivocation, no doubt.

because the litany of actual Trump actions is a disgrace to civilization.  What has he actually done?  Let's see... providing cover for Nazi murderers in the streets of Charlottesville, pardoning a bigoted sheriff, threatening nuclear war with the only head of state that might be less sane than he himself?

Damn you're really convincing everyone that you're not severely compromised by your in-group bias. I mean it's not like any of that was your groups base-level party line agenda.

We're done here.

Good. Fuck off; you're dishonest as all hell.

[trdsf]

Hey, at least Chump's pick for the Alabama senate seat got voted down. But that means Roy Moore is in - and that likely won't be a good thing.

And he's trying to pretend he didn't back Strange.

[fencerider]

You're contending that signing something into legislation is not an action. That's it's not 'doing' a thing.

No more than a showboat that runs to the front of the parade to act like he is leading it, is action.

No the president signing legislation is not a significant action because 10 days after a bill is put on the president's desk; not counting Sundays or holidays; the bill becomes law with or with out the president's signature.

[Baruch]

Hey, at least Chump's pick for the Alabama senate seat got voted down. But that means Roy Moore is in - and that likely won't be a good thing.

The violent Left will create the violent Right they fear.  Be careful what you ask for, given the law of unintended consequences.  Liberal = give me a unicorn that shoots a rainbow of Skittles out its ass, or I will blow up the USA (so much like Rocketboy our own communists are).

[Unbeliever]

Presidents do nothing, they are the false flag of false flags.  You are all fooled.

All the Republicans need or want in a president is someone who can sign their name. Aside from that, little matters to them.

[Shiranu]

I mean it's not like any of that was your groups base-level party line agenda.

Please, show me where Trumps defense of Neo Nazis and white supremacists wasn't bipartisanly condemned. Enlighten me to where pardoning a sheriff who uses work camps intended to torture prisoners is something only the left would care about (definition of terrible big government). Show me what countries in the world support his war rhetoric with the DKR.

I'm really trying, so let me just say this... you are constantly dismissive of anything we say, and resort to saying, "It's just cause you are on the left that you don't like him!" anytime legitimate grievances are brought up against him yet you expect us to debate you? Do you not see the inherent futility in a debate where at least one, if not both, sides are completely immovable in their positions?

The key difference is one side realises how absolutely horrible a person he is and thus focuses on the many, many, MANY horrible and often borderline illegal things he does and says, "We should not be represented by someone this horrible." The other thinks he could do nothing wrong, and his horrible, immature and often times extremely racist and sexist (amongst other ists) is not just acceptable but encouragable.

[Baruch]

All the Republicans need or want in a president is someone who can sign their name. Aside from that, little matters to them.

Republicans understand, even if they are malicious.  Democrats are pathetic losers.

[Cavebear]

Clinton Foundation took $1 million donation from Qatar ... but that isn't treason ... they are Democrats!

Evidence please?  What was the purpose and cause?  The Clinton Foundation is not political, as you suggest.

"Because of our work, nearly 35,000 American schools have provided kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 150,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; working with partners, more than 8.5 million trees and tree seedlings have been planted to strengthen ecosystems and livelihoods; over 600,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises and health and wellbeing programs in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, over 11.5 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; an estimated 85 million people in the U.S. will be reached through strategic health partnerships developed across industry sectors at both the local and national level; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made more than 3,600 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 435 million people in more than 180 countries.

Conflating political names with social causes is not a meaningful attack.

[Baruch]

Evidence please?  What was the purpose and cause?  The Clinton Foundation is not political, as you suggest.

"Because of our work, nearly 35,000 American schools have provided kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 150,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; working with partners, more than 8.5 million trees and tree seedlings have been planted to strengthen ecosystems and livelihoods; over 600,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises and health and wellbeing programs in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, over 11.5 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; an estimated 85 million people in the U.S. will be reached through strategic health partnerships developed across industry sectors at both the local and national level; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made more than 3,600 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 435 million people in more than 180 countries.

Conflating political names with social causes is not a meaningful attack.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation/clintons-charity-confirms-qatars-1-million-gift-while-she-was-at-state-dept-idUSKBN12Z2SL

Is that you Chelsea?

[Cavebear]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation/clintons-charity-confirms-qatars-1-million-gift-while-she-was-at-state-dept-idUSKBN12Z2SL

Is that you Chelsea?

Don't give a link without saying why it should be visited. 

[Baruch]

Don't give a link without saying why it should be visited.

You said the bribe never happened?  So fake news?  Or it wasn't a bribe?  If a R-critter had done that, the Ds would have his head on a platter, and for good reason.

[Cavebear]

You said the bribe never happened?  So fake news?  Or it wasn't a bribe?  If a R-critter had done that, the Ds would have his head on a platter, and for good reason.

Um, I think you might have answered the wrong comment.  Or I'm confused.

[Gilgamesh]

Please, show me where Trumps defense of Neo Nazis and white supremacists wasn't bipartisanly condemned.

No, YOU show ME where trump defends white supremacy and national socialism.

The key difference is one side realises how absolutely horrible a person he is and thus focuses on the many, many, MANY horrible and often borderline illegal things he does and says, "We should not be represented by someone this horrible." The other thinks he could do nothing wrong, and his horrible, immature and often times extremely racist and sexist (amongst other ists) is not just acceptable but encouragable.

What you're not seeing here is all the claims you just levied against him are inherently subjective. He's not on your team, so of course everything he does is 'horrible', 'sexist', and 'racist.'

I discuss tangible things. When it comes to politics, tangible things come in the form of policies. I'm not going to sit here and entertain your subjective interpretation of politicians characters.

[Unbeliever]