23 thoughts on “What Presidential Honeymoon?

  1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/evan-mcmullin-to-launch-conservative-group-opposing-trump/article/2612880

    Evan McMullin states his intention to “partner with activists on the Left.” Again, we still the same formulation: Democrats, liberals, neo-Marxists etc. are mere the opponents; it is the Republican electorate that is the real enemy.

    Does that give any of the people here who pimped Evan McMullin to the readership here pause to reconsider their statements?

    Or, how about this headline:

    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-off-to-a-stunningly-conservative-start/

    This is before we compare Donald Trump’s impending Supreme Court nominee to Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Conner. I seem to recall reading multiple claims by multiple self-described “nevertrumpers” that Donald Trump was the second liberal Democrat in the race and that his administration would be perhaps even more liberal than that of Hillary Clinton. Can we call “Bullshit!,” yet?

    I, also, seem to recall numerous claims that Donald J. Trump’s words on the campaign trail were just that, words. We were told that Donald Trump was a liar; whose words were not to taken at face value because he was a liar; that we didn’t really have the foggiest notion of what Donald J. Trump’s Presidency would be like because as a liar his campaign promises were automatically null and void; and, that the real Donald Trump wasn’t going to build a wall or deport a single illegal alien. Can we call, “Bullshit!,” yet?

    • Trump is a liar, and has been one for a long, long time. He’s still lying today. That said, much of what he’s doing is impressive. That said, it’s still early yet. Try not to carve him into Rushmore before he’s been on the job for a week, mmmkay?

      • It may or not may not be, “early,” but, it is not early enough to note that Donald Trump has furthered the agenda of the right more in six days than Hillary Clinton would have down in eight years. This reality was self-evident to any objective observer well before election day. Those that argued otherwise either, were deceived, were deceiving themselves, or were attempting to deceive others.

        • Nothing is self evident when you’re dealing with a con artist. The deceiver is usually the one who’s doing all the lying.

          • The words I wrote were self-evident. They were not seen as self-evident to you. Do you really want to discuss who the real “con artist” and who the real “deceiver” was? [That reminds me that someone here projected a week before the election that not only would Donald Trump lose, but, that he would lose by a landslide.]

            Donald J. Trump ran on a very specific agenda. When he took office, he immediately set out to pursue that agenda. The natural reaction ought to be, “like duh!” but, certain posters are claiming that they are shocked, absolutely shocked that Donald Trump actually did what he said he would do after previously saying what he would do.

          • Oh, your words were self evident? Because your words said “This reality was self-evident” which is different. Sure, we can discuss who did all the lying. But first, did Trump have the largest inaugural crowd in history?

          • What was self-evident was that a Trump was going to run a more conservative administration than Hillary Clinton. What you just wrote was divorced from reality, and highly ad hominem.

          • And, you keep using “liar” and “con artist.” Repeating those words ad nauscium doesn’t make them true. I read assertion after assertion made increasingly divorced from reality.

          • Uh huh. So, about that inauguration crowd… largest ever, or is that “alternative fact” bullcrap?

    • engage in alternate logic. When someone says something they know to be untrue they are lying. When someone says something they believe to be true, they are mistaken. When you try to accuse some who was mistaken of lying, you are either lying or mistaken yourself. When news agencies pass off photos of the crowd after they had begun to disperse as representative of the true crowd size they have committed intellectual fraud.

        • If the question has any relevance to the conversation, I would be more than glad to answer it. But, I do not believe that it does. If you have an argument, not an assertion, that it has some relevance to the conversation I will gladly answer it. Is that clear enough?

          • It’s relevant because Trump is lying about it, we both know it and you can’t bring yourself to admit it. Seriously, you’d better get comfortable with that fact or it’s going to be a looooooong 4 years.

          • There you go again with assertion after assertion. Your claim is that Trump “lied” is an assertion. For you to claim that he “lied” you have to have evidence that he knew what he said was not true the moment he said it. Well? Nor, is it true that, “I know [but won’t admit]” that Donald Trump lied. My subjective belief is that he may have been mistaken, but, that he did believe probably that what he said was true. Nor, do have a final judgment on whether, or not, his claim was in error. I’d have to see pictures of crowds. The peak crowd photo of Trump was quite impressive. I assume everything CNN, the New York Time or the Washington Post is false until I am convinced otherwise. I have seen proof that CNN committed intellectual fraud. I haven’t seen the comparable photos, so I reserve judgment.

          • And, you are arguing ad hominem, as always, because you simply don’t have a case. I have made of couple of claims such as, Donald Trump has done more to further the conservative agenda in a week than Hillary Clinton would have done in eight years, and, Donald Trump has been governing very much in line with how he said he would govern. That shows a remarkable amount of honesty and integrity on Donald Trump’s part. Instead of accepting the near obvious fact that you and the rest of #nevertrump crowd, were wrong about Donald Trump you persist in straining and twisting events to fit into a pre-conceived narrative. Terrible!

  2. There’s just so much anxiety by others that it gets worrisome. Trump will pass. If anything, he’s been pretty Nixonian so far. I’m enjoying that we’re getting written orders on so many things instead of having to parse offhand statements like we did in the civil service under Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s