Summations Only

Meh. This doesn't seem to be progressing anywhere new and I'm losing interest.Thanks for the discussion.

Is Donald Trump lying about having a three handicap? | Golf | The GuardianAnd

No! Trump cheats??!!
Fake news, I’m certain!!/s

Makes me wonder if Trump and Kim Jong-un ever played against each other.Make it happen and put it on TV!!

I wonder if either of them got a hole in Un?

His dad was a good golfer. A great golfer. The best golfer. It's a despot's trait.

Oh, gee, after having just posted an 842 word message yesterday you declare disinterest - yeah, that's believable. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your position being untenable, or with the new information I introduced, or with my noting your tendency to reply to weak or fallacious arguments you wish were made instead of ones actually made.How is it that you didn't see any of these things as "progressing anywhere new":

• Rebutting your claim of union abuse of power.
• Presenting a graph of the decline of union membership since 1983.
• Explaining precisely how your claim that you're both pro-union and pro-taking-away-union-revenue is contradictory.
• Explaining how declining union membership has placed many union pension funds in financial danger of defaulting on their obligations.
• Explaining that workers in union shops make more money and receive better health benefits.
• Explaining that the percentage of workers paying dues is not the same thing as the percentage of workers supporting the union. It seems predominately an economic decision, i.e., don't pay for what you can get for free.
• Providing a link to an article explaining details of the Supreme Court decision and quoting briefly from it.
• Pointing out your mistake interpreting an analogy.

Organizations, be they clubs or corporations or non-profits or unions or political entities or whatever, weaken when their revenues are reduced. People who don't pay union dues while benefiting from the positive works of unions are freeloaders. The Supreme Court saying that's okay (for public unions) does not make it right or okay - it just makes it the law of the land with no hint of justice. Many theories have been advanced about the causes of stagnation of middle class incomes over the last half century, and the decline of unions is often posited as contributing.--Percy

quote:

---

"I’m pretty sure he pays his caddie well, since no matter how far into the woods he hits the ball, it’s in the middle of the fairway when we get there.
  —Tangle

---

I was paired up with a guy like that in a golf league once. His ball would go into the woods, we'd both go in looking for it, then after a minute or two of rousting the bushes I'd hear him yell "Found it," and there he'd be standing in the fairway pointing at a ball. "Must have bounced out." Like Trump, he was a horrible human being. Fortunately I only had to play with him the one time.

quote:

---

Reports say each of his 17 bodyguards verified the record-breaking feat.

---

But didn't he begin the round with 22 bodyguards? Well, I guess we all have to keep up. Did I say I recently played 2 hours of tennis in 94 degree heat? I misspoke. I meant 194 degree heat. And we took no breaks and drank no water. And we were wearing 20 pound ankle weights. And we only stopped because my partner had an appointment, else we'd still be playing. We swung so hard we went through 20 rackets and 10 cans of balls. The fence has holes in it from our massive cannonball serves. Our overhead smashes left craters in the court. Passersby were deafened as our shots regularly broke the sound barrier and created sonic booms. A crowd formed to watch us greater in number than Trump's inaugural. We'll probably win a Nobel prize.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

I understand that we may differ in political and ideological viewpoints, but I'm not really sure how you can write the above with a straight face; assuming you're not just trolling. No President in living memory has gloated more than Trump. He regularly goes on Twitter to declare himself a political genius.George Bush was excoriated and ridiculed in the press and on the internet. Barack Obama was villified by different sections of the press and was accused by whackos on the internet of all manner of sins. How did they respond to these critics? They didn't, because they were trying to look presidential and had better things to do, being President of the US.Trump, on the other hand, writes angry rants on the internet in response to comedians who mock him and publically denigrates journalists who criticise him. To praise this reaction as measured indicates either a total lack of honesty or a distressing level of self-delusion.The behaviour of many US Republicans at the moment reminds me of my student days organising campaigns against the Iraq War - specifically of those socialists and Communists advocating alliances with Islamic radicals. The idea of supporting someone whose whole ethos is antithetical to everything you claim to believe just because of a couple of policies or some common enemy is baffling to me.Hyroglyphyx said something about Christianity being linked to nationalism - but Trump's not even a good nationalist. The President of the United States is tweeting anti-American Russian state propaganda! Surely you don't need to be a tie-dyed hippy for that to be a step too far?

I'd expect him to drink a little bit in social gatherings, but your link isn't very convincing that he's "definitely been drunk". That's just the proclamation of "Ruth Ellis Haworth", someone who appears to have a very anti-Trump bias. Yet Trump is the first president to do it in a long time, probably since Truman, if not Theodore Roosevelt. During their past campaigns, all the Republicans that were in the primaries against Trump, and Bush, and Reagan etc. had to tiptoe around being blunt about the anti-Christian news media. Unlike all them, Trump wasn't dependent on any special interest to finance his campaign, so he didn't have to worry about political correctness like all of them did. And.... Christians liked that! Obama and the Clintons did their share of lying for fun, it's documented. Every president is accused of lying by those who favor the other party, and can often make good cases for it. The problem is, it can sometimes be hard to distinguish between a lie, and some innocent play-acting in the interest of politeness and good manners, something that a U.S. president often has to do just about every day.
If, during Trump's meeting with Kim Jong Un, he would have just scowled, and said "okay little Rocket Man, do you have any thing substantial to say to me?", it would have been much more honest than all the smiling and back slapping that he did. But it wouldn't have gone over nearly as well with the rest of the world. A lot of politeness is phony, it's just human nature. And there's nothing wrong with that, he popularized the term, in a very useful way. Because that's the way Hillary used it, and she is the end-all of word definitions? Word definitions can't be modified, or changed completely, as the word "gay" has over the past several decades? Brian Ross was fired from ABC news (reluctantly, they had no choice) for making something up out of whole cloth. That's fake news, but many Christians like myself also have decided to consider tricky twists and distorts of the truth to also be fake news. I watch ABC Fake News Tonight With David Muir most evenings, and see it there in some degree every single night. Like the time several months ago when Syria gassed it's own people, and Trump declared that Syria's president "crossed a lot of lines". While some details were being shown on the newscast, the caption ~Trump; "crossed a lot of lines"~ was displayed at the bottom of the screen. They knew that casual passersby of the TV screen saw "Trump crossed a lot of lines", and were completely mislead on what actually happened. This is the games non-Christian news outlets play. Many Christians recognize it. It happens in countless other ways. My point was that he's energetic. He probably finished that up by mid-day and did some presidential business that afternoon - and evening. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't remember seeing this kind of energy from past presidents, often much younger than him. But you seem to favor socialism and big government, and are very forgiving of Obama and the Clintons for all their lies. Not a bigot? Bigotry is defined as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Considering the hatred most of the political left, including you, shows towards Trump, it might be time for you to realize that you no longer have a monopoly on that word. What has Trump done that has personally affected your life? It indicates a passion for traditional economical liberties. Christians aren't necessarily looking for someone to establish Christianity in government. If the U.S. can avoid being turned into a socialist country, then Christianity is served. Trump's personal life is secondary.

This is your favorite argument. "I don't remember it, so let's assume it did not happen." I knew we'd see it again. Why does bigotry have to affect me personally? Republicans and Democrats do appear to view bigotry quite differently. For left-leaning folk, bigotry is disqualifying for a public official. For right-leaning folks, at least based on you as the example, the response is to deflect and talk about the bigotry of others.I'll have to admit that I can understand some of your points here. If Trump is delivering what you want, then your support is quite understandable. But I am also seeing from you, "well Obama did it too", I'd have to point out that you did not support Obama when he did those things.I appreciate the time you took to respond. And despite my picking at what I see as the least well-supported parts of your response, there is plenty here to think about. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A lot of what he does is a reaction to the unprecedented hate he has to deal with every day. He uses Twitter to by-pass the news medias distortions of what he has to say. No president in history has had his opponents make complete fools of themselves during the campaign for the presidency. He was justified in the gloating he did, (it was satisfying to many Christians - he owed it to them) and he could have done it more. Bush and Obama didn't get it to anywhere near the extent Trump does. The media (according to them, the world) was "stunned" that he supposedly put a trust in Putin more so than in his own intelligence department. It could have been the wrong thing to say, but it's understandable since at least some of his own intelligence department is corrupt, and out to destroy his presidency. Ever hear of Peter Strzok, or John Brennan? Check the above short vid, starting at 1:25, and tell me how presidential Obama looked. He's not a stuffy Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, he has a personality that many Christians happen to like. "Journalists" are demonstrating a hatred that is simply not good for the well being of the U.S. Trump's ethos and "couple of politices" are FAR less antithetical to Christianity than godless socialism of today's Democrat party. . Who told you that? The fake news media? Quote one of those tweets and we'll discuss it. Should the entire presidency be judged on tweets? Edited by Admin, : Make link to YouTube video inline.

It's how voters make their decisions. If you disagree with the statement, I'd expect to see some documentation of high levels of energy from past presidents. Because he had different motives for doing them. Thank you. I made it 245 days between activities here. It was a calm, peaceful time, a new streak may be starting soon.

If they make decisions in this way, they are idiots. We know for a fact that Obama, for example, regularly took breaks to play basketball during the day and returned to work. For Trump, we are talking about riding around on a golf cart. No comparison.But that is beside the point. What you are doing is throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. If you are going to make the claim, you should vet it yourself and not rely on memory when you don't even check. It's just plain lazy.ABE:I re-read your original statement and I see that the idea that Trump returned to work after his workout is just something you guessed at without having any indication. That is even worse than lazy. It's flat out dishonest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So would everyone, but why does he lie about it. It is apparently his SOP - if you talk, lie. Do Christians care that Trump bluntly tells lies? This oughta be good - so document Obama and Clinton (either one) "lying for fun." I'm not fond of either Clinton, by the way, but especially not of Bill Clinton. I found especially offensive his "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" comment during his grand jury testimony. I don't think anyone would ever accuse Trump of "innocent play-acting in the interest of politeness and good manners." Trump just lies, at a prodigious rate, Trump is misusing the term fake news. It does not mean, "News that is unfavorable to Donald Trump or that he disagrees with." It means news that is made up and has no factual basis. No, because that's what fake news means. First, as the quote I provided you clearly stated, Craig Silverman of Buzzfeed used the term before Clinton. According to him he began using it back in 2014, see I Helped Popularize The Term Fake News And Now I Cringe Every Time I Hear It.Second, what else would fake news mean except news that is made up without any basis in fact? Of course word definitions can change. Are you saying that you think fake news should now be defined as any news unfavorable to Donald Trump or that he disagrees with? Two things. First, Ross wasn't fired but reassigned. Second, since you're now talking about Ross's misreporting, that means you do think fake news means news that is made up, which is the way Clinton used the term, but not Trump. You can't have it both ways, so make up your mind. Does fake news mean news that's made up, or news unfavorable to Donald Trump or that he disagrees with. Now you're creating yet a third definition of fake news, one that's primarily subjective and not of much use since by that definition there will be little agreement about what is and isn't fake news. It's not really a definition so much as a transparent justification for falsely casting aspersions. I don't watch any television news and so can't comment, and I don't think your reactions to ABC News are relevant to this conversation anyway. In a thread about Trump this should be about what Trump thinks is fake news, not you. Putting "Trump: 'crossed a lot of lines'" in a caption is fake news to you because you think casual viewers will fail to see the colon and quotation mark between "Trump" and "crossed a lot of lines"? Isn't this just a meaningless complaint about a standard way of indicating who said something? Playing golf isn't energetic, and playing it from a golf cart is even further from energetic. You mean he tweeted. Playing golf reflects energy? Obama played golf, too, though not as much as Trump. Interestingly, during the campaign Trump complained that Obama played too much golf. Now you're just making stuff up. I'm mostly apolitical, but Trump is just too outrageous to ignore. I could go on and on, but I think family separation all by itself objectively illustrates what a horrible human being is Trump, and it certainly runs strongly against Christian values. And you're very confused about proper use of the term bigot. The question isn't relevant since my main concern is what havoc Trump is wreaking on the country and the world, but since you ask and since Trump's tax bill will cause my taxes to go up I'll mention that as what he's done to me personally. But my larger concern regarding his tax bill is the huge tax cuts for the rich that are increasing the deficit and widening the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. They pretty necessarily are. Remember Ananias and Sapphira? Jesus was a socialist, and apparently in favor of capital punishment for small crimes.--Percy