Meaning? How exactly should one react when people start jumping on you for things you never said? If others would actually read what people write..that problem would go away, would it not? If one is looking at whether or not he is doing things? Yes. Within the time frame he's been there, what else could anyone have done? Please do elaborate on how you thought that was going to get done in 2 weeks? See above. Although he did sign an EO getting that started. In terms of getting something done? Yes. Again, if he didn't actually do this...what's all the fuss about? Nope. Worthy of its own debate. Was it an accomplishment when Obama did it? Did they? I see lots of sites out there (besides alt-right sites, mainly ones from the U.K., Pakistan, and India) indicating the ban exists. The Kuwaiti statement didn't exactly deny it...they just indicated there are lots of immigrants there, and they have full rights (which isn't true...immigrant workers are denigrated in Kuwait, and much of the Middle East). I'm not an expert in Kuwaiti immigration though. Are you? Or to you just take whatever seems to fit your belief, and call it gospel? Have you similarly parsed everything the previous administration said? Was it an accomplishment for Obama to tell all sort of known lies about the ACA, for example, creating their own stream of alt facts? Or is your ire only new found, and uni directional? Do you think those on the right couldn't go throw each of Obama's appointments and find all sorts of things they didn't like about them? Was lying about things regarding massive national policy decisions (ACA) more or less important than statements made about the crowd size during the inauguration?
Fair enough...but they are also incredibly agreeable to some people too. Which is why he won the election. Hence the need for discussion. And if he hasn't in fact done anything, let's not react as if he has. Personally, I don't think its debatable that he's done more in his first two weeks than any President I'm aware of. Good, bad, or otherwise, he seems intent on actually doing what he said he would do, and seems to be going about it pretty aggressively. I would have thought that went without saying, but it seems everyone wants to argue everything any more.
@BigDog63 Wow, you basically defended everything he did or failed to do. You defended his outright lie on the Kuwait immigration law that the Kuwait official said "Kuwait "categorically denies these claims and affirms that these reported nationalities ... have big communities in Kuwait and enjoy full rights," a ministry spokesman was quoted as saying on state news agency KUNA on Friday. And Trump's story is sourcing InfoWars and Breitbart, and InfoWars sourced Sputnik International, a Russian government news agency (hmm... Russian, interesting). You defended trump's defense of Putin by equating Putin with American government actions? And your defense, not surprising, is to blame Obama for doing something similar? Seriously? You defended Trump's surrounding himself with a white supremacist and two people that have been caught already in obvious lies. By blaming Obama. In fact, you seem to want to excuse everything he has done by blaming Obama. At what point is it possible to simply say, Trump was wrong to lie about Kuwait. That he was wrong to elevate Bannon to his lead adviser and member of the National Security Council. That he was wrong to attack the judge. He was wrong to lie about voter fraud, about the number of people at his inauguration? These aren't overly aggressive campaign promises (ie his plan to replace ACA day 1 with a beautiful plan he already had). These are out and out lies.
Sigh, more failure to read and comprehend. Right after you pointed out, seemingly, how false that is. I addressed each of your questions. I didn't defend them. But, the left just can't statements at face value, without denigrated anyone who doesn't just line up behind them. Sooooo typical. And that you clearly don't want your posts and comments addressed is duly noted. Again, sooooo typical. Really? Where? I triple dare you to point out where I indicated that. Or are you making up alt-facts? It would certainly appear so. What I did say, is that it was a topic worthy of debate. Interesting that you disagree with that, as it was a centerpoint of Obama's outlook, and many other liberals as well. Was he, and all those other liberals completely wrong? It is also a completely neutral statement, neither supporting or defending either side. As such, it is hardly a defense of ... anything, other than it being an interesting topic of debate. So, alt-fact confirmed, as is your anathema of actual debate on something. Interesting. And your inability to refute the comparison is noted (although it isn't really refutable). All I did was point out it was a point Where did I defend it? I didn't comment on that at all. Nor did I do that. Do you really not understand the difference between addressing something, and defending a position? I DID point out that Obama did similar things. That isn't defending either. I thing both were wrong. But it was worth noting what the lies were about...inconsequential things on the one hand, and massive national policy decisions on the other. Ha! That's rich, coming from the left which blamed Bush for anything and everything for 8 solid years. Even richer, in that it isn't what I did at all. I did indicate where Obama had done similar (or worse) things, and your failure to disagree with those is also duly noted (just as well, they are true, refuting them wouldn't have helped your cause). So, to recap. Making up facts about the inauguration crowd...HUGE DEAL. Making up facts about how his keystone national policy will work, in fact blatantly lying about it. Oh, that's completely ok. The hypocisy of this is simply mind blowing. And I will point out that in stating 'everything he has done', you are agreeing with my comment that started all this hubbub, even while you are attempting to disprove it. When it is demonstrated that he was wrong. All I did was indicate that there seemed to be a lot of sources out there that indicated Kuwait did in fact restrict immigration from Muslim countries, but that I wasn't an expert in Kuwaiti immigration law, nor were you. Funny that actually gathering facts is now condemned, from the very side that claims that's what is needed. Not surprising at all, but funny nonetheless. I don't think that was wrong. Bannon was key to his winning campaign. Is it wrong to pick key campaign strategies to help further with your administration? If so...were you similarly outraged when Obama made highly partisan picks for his cabinet, putting people key to his campaign in key positions. Do please indicate your posts to that effect. Otherwise, I will take this point as granted, and that you agree your stance is unfounded and hypocritical. I do get WHY this pick would incite the reaction from the left, but that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it...how Presidents in general staff their cabinet. Yep, that was wrong. He could put out a statement disagreeing with the decision, but he didn't need to go about it that way. Yep, that was wrong. But given all the attacks against him indicating voter fraud is what caused him to win, his position is at least understandable. Funny how the left is so for voter fraud driving the election results on the one hand, and so staunch in that it didn't happen at all on the other. Inconsequential. It wasn't worth the fuss the left made of it to begin with, and it wasn't worth his commenting on it in return. Again, do please show where you had similar outrage over repeated lies Obama told about the ACA. Or drop the attitude, and the position, as clearly you aren't one who cares about lies. I will await your listing of posts, otherwise I will take it as granted that you can't produce them, and you concede the point.
Bold words from the side losing pretty much everywhere across the country. But typifying the very attitude causing them to lose, so by all means, do please continue!
According to the latest White House press release, they have unearthed the Real, Not Fake picture of Obama's 2009 inauguration:
You have something wrong here. The left made no comment on it at all to begin with. The parks department had a photo of it, and a newspaper published a photo and wrote something about it. There was no deal made of it. Then Trump shut down the tweets from Parks department and started trying to attack anyone who suggested he had fewer people at the inauguration. At that point it the media fact checked and published as they should that Trump and his administration were lying about it. Trying to act like the left made a deal of it first, just isn't accurate. His administration then told a number of lies about the incident in trying to let him believe he had more people than anyone else ever.
Believe me, I'm just as irritated about some of the extreme liberal behavior. You had a significant number of people voting for Trump as a way to stick it to the extreme liberals- and you're going to keep being extreme? A protest here and there is fine- but really, they have much bigger fish to fry. If they don't watch it, they're going to galvanize enough independents to give Trump a 2nd term.
That being said, Trump needs to stop with this media obsession. He's exaggerating it beyond reality. At some point, HE is going to drag on-the-fence independents into believing the mainstream media over him. Basically, what I'm saying is extremism on both sides is counter-productive.
If true, not good for Trump. Not that I don't believe you...it sounds like something Trump might/would do. I will research further. Also, if indeed true, the media would also then be right for harping on it.
If people are so stupid to vote for Trump to "stick it to liberals" then indeed the sun will set on American exceptionalism and it's time to look to China as the new leader of the world. We had a nice run. But this blame the liberals - who are now totally out of power - for getting Trump re-elected is hilarious. He may very well get re-elected, 4 of the last 5 got re-elected and the only one that didn't was during a recession. But it won't have anything to do with sticking it to the liberals. If anything the right has shown that 0 cooperation is the best path to regain power.
And he wonders why he has no credibility. Another point of proof that bigdog is a big dog that just laps up the alt-right propaganda. People like bigdog blame the "left" for a controversy created by Trump's narcissistic ego! Then the blame the "liberals"
And people like SweetLou exemplify the holier than thou attitude that cost Democrats the election...and that many in that camp clearly haven't learned a damned thing from that, while claiming prescience into other's thinking and motivation that they only have in their own small little minds. You do realize (well, no, of course you don't) that you do EXACTLY what it is you rant about. As such, perhaps you should worry more about YOUR credibility and less about others, hmmm? But, of course that won't happen, given the holier than thou attitude and strict adherence to alt-left messaging. I, unlike you, was willing to take the information provided about that incident at face value, and do some more research on it...and also indicated that if it was true, that this changed my opinion of the media coverage of it. You are completely unable to do that, so deep you are in your hole...so criticism from you about one's credibility is water off a duck's back. Moreso, it is probably even a badge of honor. Others in this thread have responded with valid comments, and I have tried to engage them accordingly. You are just a sad stereotype that is fun to continue poking...because that elicits a response that just furthers the stereotype, and because it is a perfect example of just exactly why the left lost the election, and how the reactions of many to that aren't helpful to them. A useful foil, who, like many of the left and the media, doesn't even see how they are being used.
