The Trump Presidency

[sonofdaxjones]

So now dax you are following their lead and not standing up to trump? As the kids say....What a beta

Enjoy your life of utter hypocrisy, Phil.

It was your idol that made the world a way more dangerous place. 

Just thinking about all the Dems that sponsored, co-sponsored and voted for expanding the Executive branches power on immigration.   While the cornerstones of the Dem party railed on illegal immigration (while they were in power) for the last 30 years, supported bills that would build walls, repeatedly threatened and deported illegals, stopped immigration from specific countries entirely for months on end, and bombed others into the Stone Age.

While Libs did nothing but support them with  zeal and verve. 

Sad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil Titola]

Just as you are doing today. Sad. Enraged.

[sonofdaxjones]

Just as you are doing today. Sad. Enraged.

Deflection is not the cure, Phil.

You steadfastly supported the politicians and party that did all the things (and then some) that you suddenly decided to hate now.  You unequivocally supported an administration that created a vastly more dangerous world, and now you hate the people that have to deal with the outcome.

Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHONGS]

Such a facile argument

[CHONGS]

Whataboutism at its finest

[sonofdaxjones]

Yes, totally ignore the policies that put us in the positions we're in today, great idea Chin.

Allow an entire political class to totally meltdown and disrupt because they don't like the new policies that have to deal with the outcomes of what they supported without question.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

How many of these protesters do you suppose voted for Bill Clinton, dax?

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/836002147749806080

[sonofdaxjones]

How many of these protesters do you suppose voted for Bill Clinton, dax?

What has that got to do with anything? 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/836002147749806080

Flynn was "ousted" because Trump gave in to something that didn't exist.  The transcripts show the guy did nothing wrong.  However the unelected spooks who didn't want their world view altered, or their dumb deals exposed, won. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHONGS]

Yes, totally ignore the policies that put us in the positions we're in today, great idea Chin.

Allow an entire political class to totally meltdown and disrupt because they don't like the new policies that have to deal with the outcomes of what they supported without question.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obama supports said the same thing after W. W supporters said the same thing after Clinton.  Clinton supporters said the same thing after Reagan + Bush.  Reagan supporters said the same thing after Carter (as you well know).

It's a dumb argument that leads to nothing.   It's cowardly and lazy.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yes, totally ignore the policies that put us in the positions we're in today, great idea Chin.

Allow an entire political class to totally meltdown and disrupt because they don't like the new policies that have to deal with the outcomes of what they supported without question.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obama supports said the same thing after W. W supporters said the same thing after Clinton.  Clinton supporters said the same thing after Reagan + Bush.  Reagan supporters said the same thing after Carter (as you well know).

It's a dumb argument that leads to nothing.   It's cowardly and lazy.

Yet, there was nothing near the total, disruptive meltdown there is today, that's being fueled by outside players to further their agenda.  Including a now former president. 

Your argument (if you want to call it that) is wading pool deep at best.   As usual. Intellectually dishonest, and very lazy.

You don't get to practice the highest form of hypocrisy and not expect to get called on it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHONGS]

What do you think is happening?

[sonofdaxjones]

What do you think is happening?

Happening with what Captain Cryptic

Use your words. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[star seed 7]

What do you think is happening?

Happening with what Captain Cryptic

Use your words. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love this irony

[CHONGS]

Your reliance on tu quoque makes you look silly.

[CHONGS]

What do you think is happening?

Happening with what Captain Cryptic

Use your words. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet, there was nothing near the total, disruptive meltdown there is today, that's being fueled by outside players to further their agenda.  Including a now former president.

[sonofdaxjones]

Your reliance on tu quoque makes you look silly.

Lol,  policies particularly geo-strategic policies of war, immigration et al don't  get to live in vacuums with action and decisions in the past living in mutually exclusive little enclaves that have no bearing on future outcomes. 

We are only 2 months removed from an administration that made the world a more dangerous place, and set forth policies that are fundamentally dangerous to our republic by ceding more power than ever to an unelected and virtually unknown class of political players. 

Discussing the complicity of those who now chose to be outraged in a very disruptive manner because they lost and who unquestionably supported the previous administration whose policies placed us in a very precarious state.  Falls into none of your tidy little buckets Chin.

We're in uncharted waters, old school deflection need not apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHONGS]

I am simply pointing out that your word salads are essentially logically empty.  In fact, you are the one deflecting by focusing on the hypocrisy of your "opponents" rather than the content of their concerns/arguments.   

But please continue, I just lacked the self-constraint needed to not point it out after reading you deploy this tactic for the millionth time.

[sonofdaxjones]

I am simply pointing out that your word salads are essentially logically empty.  In fact, you are the one deflecting by focusing on the hypocrisy of your "opponents" rather than the content of their concerns/arguments.   

But please continue, I just lacked the self-constraint needed to not point it out after reading you deploy this tactic for the millionth time.

Once again, lol. 

The crux of what I am discussing is the concern/argument of my so called "opponents".   Followed by very succinct and factual reference to specific policy and action.

You'll also notice (well no, you haven't, as usual) that I am also attacking the constant stream of made up things that don't exist that are spewed about as fact.

Example:  Immigration ban.  There is no ban on immigration.  There was a temporary suspension of immigration from 7 countries. 

Your argument is cheap and deflective and reeks of a layer of guilt. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

What is the difference between a temporary ban and a temporary suspension?

[camKSU]

I am simply pointing out that your word salads are essentially logically empty.  In fact, you are the one deflecting by focusing on the hypocrisy of your "opponents" rather than the content of their concerns/arguments.   

But please continue, I just lacked the self-constraint needed to not point it out after reading you deploy this tactic for the millionth time.

Once again, lol. 

The crux of what I am discussing is the concern/argument of my so called "opponents".   Followed by very succinct and factual reference to specific policy and action.

You'll also notice (well no, you haven't, as usual) that I am also attacking the constant stream of made up things that don't exist that are spewed about as fact.

Example:  Immigration ban.  There is no ban on immigration.  There was a temporary suspension of immigration from 7 countries. 

Your argument is cheap and deflective and reeks of a layer of guilt. 

 

Dax is really bringing it on the cognitive dissonance and hypocritical craziness today.

 

[sonofdaxjones]

What is the difference between a temporary ban and a temporary suspension?

In the context of what I am discussing is that words "immigration ban" are tossed about to imply that all immigration is banned and/or more specifically Muslims collectively have been banned, which is simply untrue, in both cases. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

I am simply pointing out that your word salads are essentially logically empty.  In fact, you are the one deflecting by focusing on the hypocrisy of your "opponents" rather than the content of their concerns/arguments.   

But please continue, I just lacked the self-constraint needed to not point it out after reading you deploy this tactic for the millionth time.

Once again, lol. 

The crux of what I am discussing is the concern/argument of my so called "opponents".   Followed by very succinct and factual reference to specific policy and action.

You'll also notice (well no, you haven't, as usual) that I am also attacking the constant stream of made up things that don't exist that are spewed about as fact.

Example:  Immigration ban.  There is no ban on immigration.  There was a temporary suspension of immigration from 7 countries. 

Your argument is cheap and deflective and reeks of a layer of guilt. 

 

Dax is really bringing it on the cognitive dissonance and hypocritical craziness today.

 

You (sock) continually add nothing, and when you try to add something of substance it's a 5 paragraph screed of dribble, headline of the day nothingness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil Titola]

Nice stawman dax. Nobody was claiming there was a total immigration ban.

How about focus on Trump not being realistic with his budget, health care, attacking a free press as it relates to our Constitution, our allies laughing at us, etc etc....
Obama and Hillary didn't do any of that to your boy. He put himself in those pickles.