Summations Only

Avenatti exudes the used car salesman creep factor, at least in my eyes. Perhaps I am in the minority on this one, but I don't know if he will be able to connect with a larger national audience. I do agree he is very well spoken and has a sharp mind, but he also seems a bit too slick at times.I think Avenatti would be much more influential as the brains behind a campaign.

I have been playing it straight, as my message 2239 stated;

quote:

---

I'm only here at this time to make it as clear as I can why Christians support him. Most all of the other Pro-Trump / anti-Trump discussion is raging all over the country, I don't have the time for it.

---

So by stating that I was out of time on ONE evening, it didn't automatically mean that I don't have a lot more time on OTHER evenings. So you call me a liar for it, and I thank you very much, because it's beautiful illustration of the twisted criteria that's used to call Trump a liar most of the time. When I joined this forum back in 09, it was roughly the same point in the Obama administration as we are now in the Trump administration. The main difference of course is the economy, at that time (terrible) and now (very good). At that time, you seemed to me you were trying to discourage any type of political discussion here. Now we have this very long political thread that you started 1 1/2 years ago, but your above warning to Faith doesn't show much "tolerance" something the left seems to preach more than practice. I'll see what else I can fit in this evening between this site's server mal-functions, and then I'll probably call it good, then you and NoNukes (your fixer) can finish me off with a lot of your usual flaming arrows.

He didn't say he ALWAYS believes Putin over U.S. intelligence, he was referring to one instance. Reporting it as a blanket statement is fake news. In this day and age, it's almost impossible to tell them apart. What is George Stephanopoulos? I don't think even he knows what he is. I get that idea because Democrats, and the many prognosticators in the news media have constantly been bringing it up ever since Trump took office. The only reason some Democrats urge against it is because they know it won't work at this time, and their efforts to try it would cost them politically. Every president does, and has. A president can determine something, then modify it as foreign leaders make changes, or if he gets a new intelligence report that he didn't have before. So one of 2 things had to be happening, either NO children were separated from their parents during that time, or the news media didn't report it. Which do you think it was? This is like asking "why have police? Bank robbers are going to rob banks no matter what we do." We try to keep things under control the best we can. A wall can actually be cheaper in the long run than what we're doing now, because a wall can cut down on the manpower needed to guard the border. Manpower isn't cheap. Illegal immigration is not good. Immigration laws have come about slowly over long periods of time, by both sides of the aisle. I don't think there are any laws that say we have to suspend all or part of them, if some people get emotional over non U.S. citizens family affairs, resulting from the enforcement of our traditional laws. And you see evidence that the vast majority of illegal immigrants have that desire? People who support Trump can't see it.I have been somewhat involved with a few machine shops in my area. I've noticed that when it comes to hiring a mechanical engineer, they're quite willing to hire one or more from Germany or Japan, even if it means helping them with an expensive move. Why would they do that, over a mechanical engineer from the U.S, with most all qualifications being equal? The answer is because those two countries are known for their innovation and ability with mechanical design and ideas. The history of other cultures is important in determining worthwhile, or risky immigration. What traditions / skills come from the countries of the people pouring over our southern border? Failed socialism? The ability to cultivate cocaine and heroin?I haven't seen Democrats make a good case for why they want more central and south Americans here. That's why Republicans are doing so well these days, including Trump - it's obvious that Democrats are simply after votes.Do you ever spend time sitting in traffic jams? Thousands of people in my area spend an extra hour or two each working day doing just that. Why do we need more people, our infrastructure is losing the ability to keep up with the people we have now. U.S. population is at about 326 million now. In 1955, it was about 166 million. The U.S. was in the middle of it's interstate building program in 55, most of our current interstates were built during that time, about a 12 year period. Today's transportation dept and politicians have spent more than 12 years ringing their hands wondering how to replace the aging, largely obsolete I-75 bridge over the Ohio river in Cincinnati. Why? More environmental laws, more eminent domain laws, and of course, 20 trillion in debt. What are more uneducated latino's going to do to help this?Australia, roughly the same physical size as the U.S. currently has a population of 25 million. 9 million in 1955. What is so catastrophic about not having immigrants pouring in? Business-as-usual politicians tend not to say things like that, because they know that they and their predecessors are largely to blame for it. He does it all the time, Trump supporters see it. Any examples I put here wouldn't satisfy you. That's because your video is from the morning show, my example was from the evening, David Muir newscast. I'm not going to spend a lot of time searching for it, I know how it was presented, Trump supporters know that 91% of news coverage of Trump is negative. I watch television news during meals. Like many people, I don't read newsprint much. That's better than a lot of Democrats, the only news they get is from late night comedy hosts. 91% negative coverage of Trump. Media Research Center documents it.

Not when those morals are often practiced by non-religious people. You described how your life (being married to only one woman, etc) proved that not all the non-religious are immoral, which is true. They don't worship government, they don't worship the earth. They like the 2nd amendment, the 4th, the 10th. The church encourages voluntary, individual sharing. Not collective, forced sharing. The difference is as big as night and day. This is another debate - where to draw the line on the free stuff. Free healthcare means more carelessness in lifestyles, more and more burden on responsible people who foot the bill. "Redistribution of wealth" is a popular term, but not very descriptive. It's much more accurate to call it "redistribution of earnings". Because the wealthy find ways to shift the burden to those further down the economic ladder. Part of their job is to avoid political bias in doing their job. There have been plenty. That Democrats aren't thinking of getting illegals votes. I heard somewhere that sanctuary cities tend to work pretty hard to get them registered. And then he uses the term "conspiracy theory" - this from the party that's accusing Trump of colluding with Russia to become president of the U.S!! Hahahaha

I go by my experiences in determining what I believe. I know that the mainstream media sometimes quickly mention positives about Trump, but they go through them quickly, then go back to harping on the negatives. 91% negative, I checked on that.When you post your Democrat talking points, do you check at Fox news, or the Washington Times, to see if they're true? (I already know the answer )

You are conflating the issue. I am not talking about the problem with you quoting a source. I am referring to you saying that you claiming that some fact based on not hearing or checking anything at all. Making such claims should require doing at least some checking. But you don't check. In those multiple instances, one of which I mentioned in the last couple of days, you rely on your memory of nothing. And in fact you have admitted that you expect others to look the stuff up to see if you are right.If you instead cited Fox News or some other source as saying that something did not happen and I complained about that, then we would have the issue you are bring up here. Your tactic is simply dishonest. And I note you doing it in almost every thread you participate in. Edited by NoNukes, : Clean up some grammar

If this were a court of law, yes. But it's not. If I experience something first hand, I'm not afraid to claim it as fact. If I know it's true and someone reading doesn't believe me, I don't care.I've played the game before, I list a source, and it's called wrong or biased. Demands are made for still more sources, more more more. It never ends, until now. I don't do that anymore.

Again, I am referring to your claims about things you did not experience. Such claims are worthless if you don't do some checking to back up your apparently flagging memory.And yes, the correct response to those things is to ask for your sources. That is how honest debate and discussion proceeds. Small wonder you don't want to back stuff up. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

You heard? Got a shred of evidence?

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

Lol. Yeah, I saw this in the NYT this morning.Good news, indeed, for the working class! They won't have to pay as much taxes on their capital gains!Edited by Chiroptera, : Fixed tags.

The thing to remember is that in the end the issues revolving around Trump will be decided in the Court of Public Opinion, not likely in a Court of Law; and in the Court of Public Opinion Trump remains popular within his base.