Summations Only

More evidence for climate change: Heat Wave Scorches Sweden as Wildfires Rage in the Arctic CircleTrumpist Republicans: Nothing going on here folks.--Percy

Of course you don't have time for discussing Trump. That's why you posted all the long messages in this thread. Take all the time you need. No one's in a hurry. I understand you believe Trump is a great guy doing a great job, but merely reporting what Trump does and says cannot be bias. For example, Trump still believes Putin over his intelligence agencies, and the media have reported this. That's not bias, that's truth. Are you talking about news reporters or prognosticators? If you're talking about news reporters then post links to news particles or post YouTube videos where reporters have let their bias affect their reporting. Where did you get that idea? Until recently (due to Trump's increasing efforts to obstruct justice) most prominent Democrats seem to have thought it a bad idea. I readily concede that very recently the Democratic position is evolving depending upon what happens with the Mueller investigation and control of the houses of Congress. Here's a New York Times editorial urging against impeachment: Democrats: Don’t Take the Bait on ImpeachmentI'm going to ignore the absurd part of your post that rambles on about what lying is and suggests that a reporter might do something as ridiculous as reporting Trump asking "How ya doin'?" as a lie. But Trump does keep changing his positions. The most recent example is his position on accepting the judgment of his intelligent agencies on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is video of him saying opposite things multiple times on multiple consecutive days. If Trump feels uncomfortable with his press secretary answering questions about his lies and equivocations then instead of shrouding his administration in darkness he should start being clear and truthful. Fascism thrives in obscurity and darkness. (DaShanne Stokes, sociologist, author and speaker) At the press briefing on President Trump's physical, Vega asked White House physician Ronny Jackson, "Are you ruling out things like early onset Alzheimer's? Are you looking at dementia-like symptoms?" Seems a fair question since people were looking for explanations for Trump's gaffes and inconsistency across so many issues. Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any prior administration. A wall is not the answer. In fact, it's a stupid answer. It would be like damming up a river and expecting it to stop the flow of water. A dam can only hold back the water for so long, then the reservoir fills and the water spills across the gates. Same with desperate immigrants. You can build a wall, but they'll just find other ways around.The correct way to address immigration is first to understand that immigration is good. It begins with people at the bottom of the economic ladder but who are willing to work and strive for a better life that within a couple generations has their children in colleges and working in the professions. Cutting off immigration leads to bad outcomes. It sends countries in the same direction as Japan, which has a declining and aging population causing dire economic straights. The original point was that Trump's claim that North Korean nuclear testing was worse under Obama was false. The truth is that it was worse under Trump. And under Trump North Korea completed development of their capability to deliver nuclear missiles to the American mainland, then announced they were done, then announced they wanted talks, and Trump agreed to those talks.But no one (except maybe Trump) believes that North Korea will ever give up their nuclear weapons. They're just playing the same game with Trump that they've played with all past administrations. Why would you expect the release of evidence by an ongoing investigation? The Mueller investigation has released no evidence thus far and isn't expected to until it concludes. The only information released by the investigation is that demanded by Congress and that that is part of indictments, which are necessarily public. I think there is widespread agreement on this - how is this a "TRUTH that needs to be said?" Where there is broad disagreement is that the solution is a trade war with China. Withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a trade agreement between Pacific nations) was another big Trump mistake, since it handed China free reign to dominate Pacific trade agreements. You still haven't provided a single example, not of "things that are true, yet offensive to most Washington insiders, including some in his own party," nor of "TRUTHS that need to be said." I think we'd all be delighted if Trump began saying things that are true. You manage to raise more questions while ignoring the question I asked: Won't most people hearing a news report labeled "fake news" believe they're being told the account is false?Your "Trump: 'crossed a lot of lines'" caption was already answered as a standard way of indicating in captions who said what. But I've found an ABC News video reporting that incident that doesn't back you up at all - the caption is completely different: You don't seem able to find a true example of reporting bias. You're saying it's hard to tell between the news pages and the opinion pages? Really? If there was so much biased journalism out there, then it should be easy for you to go find some. I mostly read (in approximate order from most read to least read) the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, USA Today, Breitbart. What evidence makes this so clear to Christians? It's obvious that Fox News should be renamed Trump News, but that's not because they're owned by the Republican National Committee. That's ridiculous. Fox News is covering news in a way that appeals to their base of conservative viewers, which makes perfect sense since viewership is essential for revenue. It isn't because they're owned by the RNC.You've managed to get through an entire post without saying almost a single true thing.--Percy

I think most would agree that adherence to the Constitution is not a religiously based belief, but did you really mean to exclude traditional morals, too? Excluding morals from religious belief seems exceedingly odd. This makes no sense. In a nation with separation of church and state, why would people in their role as Christians much care about the details of their government? The church encourages sharing, a principle at the foundation of socialism. We have social security because we care about our older people and believe that we together as a society should contribute to their wellbeing. We have Medicare because we believe our older people have a right to healthcare that is unaffordable for most on a fixed income, and that therefore we as a society should contribute to it. We have Medicaid because we believe that those unable to afford their own healthcare still have a right to it, and that we as a society should contribute to it. A healthy and more well off society is a better society. When it's every man for himself then we are all poorer. There are politicians who switch party every year. Is there something in particular you have against Joe Scarborough? Sure I know what Strzok and Page said and did. What they said was to text messages back and forth that were comforting to them about a potential Trump presidency. What they did was their jobs. I guess you could include assertiveness as a Trump quality, but the Trump qualities more relevant here are antagonism, malevolence, hostility, vengefulness and crudity. None of it is reactionary. There is no one in either politics or the news media who exhibits these qualities in this combination or in this abundance and blatantness. I have no objection to the term "lashing out," I'll be happy to use it. Trump is lashing out at everyone and everything, and the media is merely reporting it. Here's the best example of Trump lashing out at the media. Enjoy: When will you be offering this clarity about why Christians support Trump? After many words, so far there have been none. Yes, it most indeed is a fact that many Christians, especially evangelicals, support Trump, to their everlasting shame. Message 2219 says: Seems fairly innocuous and obvious. Where is the "whopper?"--Percy

You're not supposed to be posting to this thread. Please stop. Your antagonistic and evidence-free participation style were why you were originally asked to cease participating here. Actions have consequences, and you've lost the right to participate in threads of consequence.You're again demonstrating your inability to engage in constructive dialogue over in your A Book about the Anti-Trump Conspiracy thread, where the totality of your most recent post was "You have NO idea," and the one previous said, "Hey the Liberal Nazis win, the Lefty Fascists win." I wish you'd stop this kind of thing over there, but you certainly won't be permitted an opportunity to do it here. Post here again and I will permanently suspend you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

Trump cited national security as his reason for instituting tariffs on steel and aluminum against Europe. Today he announced a tariff deal with Europe that would eventually eliminate all tariffs, including those on steel and aluminum. Since nothing has changed regarding the supposed connection of steel and aluminum imports to national security, obviously it was a ruse.Trump lies again.The stated goal of Trump's agreement with the EU is to eliminate tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and subsidies on industrial goods, but this is impossible. Expect more developments.Strangely, there was no mention of Trump's national security justification in the articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, and I also read the first few articles returned from a Google News search. This seems strange, but those who have already challenged the tariffs in court will notice - these tariffs should fall long before the US and the EU reach any agreement. But this deceit will give challenges additional weight against any attempts by Trump to invoke national security as justification for any future executive action.--Percy

You've mistaken the emphasis, which was your obvious lie about not having time for discussing Trump, as proven by your long messages. Why not just play it straight. Your premise is that Trump is the victim of untruthful and unfair leftist criticism, now just find some facts to support your premise. That doesn't mean rambling on at length about irrelevancies. Oh, be still my heart.--Percy

Public opinion is one thing, but if this ever gets into the courts it'll be quite another. Even if he's not impeached he's opened himself up for tons of lawsuits after his presidency is over, and he could easily be bankrupt a short while after the lawsuits begin to conclude. Trump brazenly believes he can indefinitely hold at bay all the forces arrayed against his destructive actions and policies, and maybe he's right, but if he's wrong then he's going to have a very unhappy post-presidency.--Percy

Back on June 14th I posted the message Michale Avenatti for President, saying this: And Michael Avenatti heard me, because in yesterday's Washington Post was the headline Avenatti to attend event frequented by presidential hopefuls:

quote:

---

Michael Avenatti, who has gained national attention as the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels, is scheduled to speak next month at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser that has been a frequent stop for those seeking the presidential nomination.

---

Don't miss a chance to hear him speak. He speaks clearly, directly, succinctly, and most importantly, truthfully.--Percy

So at the beginning of the Obama administration on January 20^th in 2009 the economy was in very bad shape. And it was, of course, in very bad shape the day before on January 19^th, when George W. Bush was still president. So who and what was responsible for this very bad economy? Might it have been the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Bill Clinton and the mortgage security crisis under George W. Bush? That's a rhetorical question, of course it was.So how was the economy eight years later on the last day of the Obama administration, January 19^th, 2017? It was doing great, just roaring along. And how was it doing the next day on the first day of the Trump administration, January 20^th, 2017? Still just great, right? So who was responsible for this very good economy? Might it have been Obama? That's a rhetorical question, of course it was.The economy since Trump's inauguration has remained good, and Trump accomplished this by reducing taxes and running huge deficits, always guaranteed to rev up an economy, and in the case of an already healthy economy, one guaranteed to eventually result in a bust and probably high inflation, too, though the Fed has already started battling inflation by raising interest rates.And who's throwing a monkey wrench into the economy by instituting ridiculous tariffs and engaging in a trade war with the entire world? That would be Trump. Layoffs by businesses affected by the tariffs have already begun. Are you nuts? Not in 2009 or at any other time. You seem to have taken a hard right off the topic and into complaints about board moderation. Take it to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. There's not much tolerance for Faith's extreme Forum Guidelines violations. Any political views are fine and completely tolerated. If you'd like to defend Faith's Forum Guidelines violations take it to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. What do you mean by "what else I can fit in." You haven't fit anything in yet. All you've managed to do so far is mangle history, and relatively recent history at that, and cast accusations. So you'll say nothing and "call it good". Great job. Surprise us and say something factually true of substance.--Percy

Well now you're just being dishonest. Of course the context is Russian interference in our elections. That's what all the conversation, and all the news articles, have been about regarding Trump trusting Putin over our intelligence agencies. You know who those intelligence agencies are, right? They're the ones responsible for the recent indictment of 12 Russians for interfering in our 2016 election? I'm not having any trouble. George Stephanopoulos is a journalist and political commentator. I've watched him maybe a couple of times on This Week. Do you have some specific criticism? No, most every president doesn't and hasn't. Trump's consecutive multiple flip-flops on whether he accepts the judgment of his intelligence agencies on Russian meddling in the 2016 election was both extreme and extremely unusual and a sad day (consecutive days, actually) for our democratic institutions. Sure, a rational president could do that, but is that what Trump did? Tell us what foreign leaders or intelligence reports Trump was responding to that would lead him to change his mind daily over the course of a week about whether he believed his own intelligence agencies. I know what it was, and why are you so ignorant? During the Obama administration families were kept together. Family separation didn't begin until Trump. You can't even pull off a decent analogy. No, it is not like asking why have police. It's like asking why we don't issue rocket ships to police. And it's because they'd do no good.Patrols and technology are the answer to border security, not walls. A wall sitting unattended in the middle of nowhere is just begging to be subverted and somehow penetrated. Over, under, through. Here's one great wall idea: A Jaws of Life used to free car crash victims would create an opening in this in no time. Nobody said it was, but the Trump administration is criminalizing asylum requests. Under Trump asylum requests must be made at designated asylum points to avoid arrest. Someone fleeing danger at home while avoiding dangers on the run will not always have the option of presenting themselves at designated asylum points. Those that do are finding that processing resources are overloaded and that they have to wait for many days in Mexico. Sessions declared key conditions for asylum off limits, such as domestic abuse or gang violence, and so now those applying for asylum using those reasons are arrested.In other words, we're declaring many people wanting to apply for asylum to be illegal immigrants. We can't solve the problem of people fleeing problems in Central America just by declaring that they're illegal immigrants. The people still exist, and if they can't get in legally then they'll find ways to get in illegally, ways that are much more risky. US immigration law is badly in need of reform. Trump administration attitudes towards those fleeing conditions in their home countries are also badly in need of reform. Your ignorance is showing again. Immigrants, illegal or not, naturalized or not, commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens. The 2nd and 3rd generations of immigrants gradually pull themselves up the economic ladder. 1st generation immigrants are frequently willing to perform work that many Americans are not, such as harvesting seasonal crops, landscaping and housecleaning. See Factors leading to immigrant generations' accomplishments and Children of Immigrants Are More Educated Than Their Peers and Immigrants in America: The second-generation story for just a little information. You can't see it because you don't want to see it because you hate immigration and immigrants. You want the country to remain just as white as possible. Your biased views of immigrants are woefully apparent. The history of immigration is a net benefit to this country. A hundred and forty years or so ago one side of my family arrived at Ellis Island. They were poor Jewish peasants from Ukraine. We don't care where they come from. People who want to come here should be allowed to come here under reasonable quotas (certainly much more than what Trump is proposing) and in reasonable periods of time (certainly not the years and years it currently takes). Non-citizens can't vote. Naturalization takes at least five years. You're afraid of an influx of uneducated latinos into Cincinnati?Anyway, sounds like you could use an influx of fresh blood, and of cheap and eager labor to help you with infrastructure.Have you ever looked at Social Security financials? The government will begin reducing Social Security benefits by 2034 unless the population begins increasing at a higher rate. Do you think immigration might help with that? Immigrants also tend to have larger families than American citizens, so the country would grow faster with more immigrants. Australia was a poor choice of example - can't you do math? Assuming your figures are correct, Australia's population grew at a greater rate from 1955 until today than the US did, increasing by 170% while the US population increased by only 96%. China's unfair trade practices have been a topic of conversation for years. Again, why is this a "TRUTH that needs to be said" instead of just one more thing you're ignorant of? It may be something that needs to be said to you, but not to many other people. Ah, I see, you Trump supporters can see it, but other's can't. But it's there all the same. Sounds a bit like angels and leprechauns. Ah, I see, you're not going to support your claims, you just know you're right. Ah, I see. And your evidence that Democrats mostly get their news from late night comedy hosts? But that's only because 91% of what Trump does is negative.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

So you're talking about the category of morals that religious believers follow but that non-religious people do not follow. Which morals would that be, exactly? Well, I think the 4th and 10th amendments are pretty popular all around, but why are Christians particularly fond of guns? Really. And how do Ananias and Sapphira feel about this? More regular contact with healthcare professionals will encourage more healthy lifestyles as well as assist in early detection. And when the bill is more than a responsible person with no health insurance can afford? I don't think it's a popular term, and why are you introducing it anyway? It's less accurate because those with wealth don't need to have earnings. You mean like with the recent Trump tax bill? Where was the political bias in doing their job? Once again, no words explaining why Christians support Trump. You're just throwing out nonsense to see what sticks. There's no evidence of a conspiracy to register illegal immigrants, not in sanctuary cities or anywhere else. There are even extremely few recorded incidences of illegally cast votes.Here's some links to news from your part of the country:

• Will Trump tariffs cause a construction slowdown in Cincinnati? (mentions bridges, part of that infrastructure you were talking about in your previous post)
• Trade war? Chinese retaliation to Trump tariffs would hit Ohio hard.
  
• GOP Senator from Ohio Concerned About Trump Tariff Battles
  
• Cincinnati's P&G products could be casualty of Trump’s tariff war

--Percy

What has Trump done lately? Just a few things:

• Claimed (through his lawyer Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani just obliterated the goal posts on Trump-Russia collusion) that collusion is not a crime. As discussed in this thread, that is true but only in a technical sense. The actual legal term is conspiracy. If Trump or any of his people (Donald Jr. and Jared Kusher probably have the most exposure) are charged with working with the Russians (a foreign power - that's key) to affect the 2016 election, they'll be charged with conspiracy. Of course they colluded, that's just not the word that will be used in the indictment.
  ​
• Trump is considering cutting taxes on the rich again (Trump administration considers tax cut for the wealthy).
  ​
• Trump threatens to shut down the government if he doesn't get his wall (Trump upends Republican leaders’ carefully scripted plan with shutdown threat; Trump Again Threatens to Shut Down Government).
  ​
• Layoffs from Trump tariffs are piling up. So are calls for more bailouts. 'Nuff said.
  ​
• Bob Woodward’s New Book Will Detail ‘Harrowing Life’ Inside Trump White House. Should make good reading.

--Percy

Department of Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen today commented about 2016 election meddling at the DHS National Cybersecurity Summit: "Let me be clear: Our intelligence community had it right. It was the Russians."This is good to hear after all of Trump's recently waffling (I think his last flip-flop had him saying it wasn't the Russians), but later Nielsen said, "No actual votes were changed in 2016."That's absurd. A guy was actually convinced that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop by fake news on social media, to such an extent that he got his gun and shot up the place. Convincing people to vote a certain way has got to be much easier. Of course votes were changed.--Percy

The Washington Post has updated their Trump Fact Checker to July 31, 2018 (it had been May 31, 2018): In 558 days, President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims. Here's the graph of accumulated false and misleading statements: At their webpage the graph can also display in daily and monthly formats.Most repeated claim? In it's most recent form, here it is:

quote:

---

Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!

---

Collusion won't be the legal term used in any indictments, but collusion (a sort of catchall term) is definitely a crime.
Needless to say, much evidence has emerged of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and there's been no evidence of any contact between the Clinton campaign and Russia.--Percy

I tried looking into the "MAYBE $3 billion" part. The $3 billion figure is at the low end of various independent estimates, though that's what Forbes estimates. Also according to Forbes Trump has claimed figures like $8.7 billion and more than $10 billion, but because Trump lies about most everything we know any estimate he provides can't be trusted and should be ignored. This Wikipedia article about The Trump Organization comments on the problems of estimating its value:

quote:

---

Since the financial statements of the Trump Organization's holdings are private, as are Donald Trump's personal tax returns, there exist a wide range of estimates of the Trump Organization's true value. Donald Trump has been accused on several occasions of deliberately inflating the valuation of Trump Organization properties through the aggressive lobbying of the media, in particular the authors of the annual Forbes 400 list, in order to bolster his perceived net worth among the public over several decades. He has released little definitive financial documentation to the public to confirm his valuation claims.

---

The Trump properties are undoubtedly worth a great deal, but Trump also has mortgages. Mortgages are a matter of public record since they result in liens being publicly recorded on properties, so any independent estimates of his wealth would take into account both his assets and his mortgage liabilities, and so one would think these independent estimates would be pretty close to the mark.But the ability of the rich to hide information and to just get away with stuff means there is much not publicly known about the Trump empire, so I don't trust the independent estimates of Trump's net worth. Trump's obsequiousness before anything Russian is more than suspicious, it's a blaring alarm. There must be a reason. My best guess (and I think the simplest) is that he owes billions to Russian oligarchs.It's impossible to know Trump's actual net worth, but I'm thinking a figure less than zero, and that it will all come crashing down once he's out of office and the lawsuits start piling up.AbE: I just came across a 2016 Vanity Fair article that asks if Donald Trump is really a billionaire, recounting some things we already knew but probably no longer recall since this was a couple years ago:

quote:

---

The fact that he’s sold several of his assetsincluding up to $7 million in fund assets and $9 million in individual securitiesto cover his campaign debt suggests that he probably doesn’t have enough cash on hand to easily cover the costs of his campaign outright. That’s not something one would expect from a man who claims he is worth in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS (the capitalization is Trump’s). In addition, the real estate mogul has added over $50 million in debt to his ledger, Politico reports, putting his total debt somewhere between $315 million and $500 million, and possibly more.

​

If he is swimming in so much cash for all his holdings, why is he selling this stuff to raise cash? one anonymous, fellow elite asked Politico, apparently rhetorically. You would see that he doesn’t have the money that he claims to have and he’s not paying much of anything in taxes, a hedge-fund manager, also anonymous to avoid Trump’s wrath, told the news outlet.

---

--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.