paying attention to debates but ignoring Trump

[Sea Dangles]

Some would treat it like the Bible and interpret as they choose to,enjoy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I did read your words.
Just how do you determine actual political philosophy without listening to politicians speak? Is it only thru the written word or hearsay?

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner
Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner

A la Trump, you have to clarify what you meant by your inartful (actually incorrect) implication of what I said. And then, like Trump and most other politicians, you put a negative spin, pontification, on my pointing out how you were wrong but, like Trump, not intentionally--how, you told a Trump-like "lie.

Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a Trump-like, sloppy use of diction? What do you mean by political history? You mean actually being an elected politician? And that only previously elected politicians can be viable candidates? The Constitution does not say that. Trump was absolutely constitutionally viable as a candidate.

And we all have political histories if we vote or discuss politics or contribute to political campaigns. All the candidates, including the ones I disagree with, were "viable." Perhaps, rather than a legal, constitutional view of viability, you prefer the Progressive view of rule by "experts," expertise being defined by Progressives? That is, in my opinion, an elitist, totalitarian view, but you may think it is a perfectly viable one.

For that matter, Trump had actual executive experience that was more so than most of the other candidates. And he had shown the ability to succeed, even to rise from and correct failure and error. And he was, as demonstrated in the debates, tenacious, fearless, insightful, and, for all your notion of what he didn't have, he did not have the anti-American political baggage of the Progressives. Of course, by "anti-American," I mean something that is probably different than what you would mean, but your question was how did I determine he was viable, not how you did you determine that he wasn't. If that is what you determined.

[Pete F.]

Trump’s political history as shown in his tv appearances, tweets, draft dodging, party switching, concealment of any school grades from grade school thru college, tax returns, non disclosure agreements and his use of alias to inflate his public persona lead me to believe he is not quite what he claims to be. I certainly do not see him as fearless and insightful, but as paranoid and narrow minded.
After failing as a real estate developer, he now runs a business that is largely compromised of selling his brand. He was very successful at that, largely because of his affiliation with The Apprentice. He has had several books ghost written for him, each time he has gotten lots of press by getting sort of involved in politics. He ran for President once before and has apparently since forgotten about that since he non-lies and claims he didn’t.
The source of his wealth after his failure as a developer is sketchy at best, Russian at worst. His sons have both said they get all the funding they need from Russia.
I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time. I’m not willing to concede to him this country.
Happy 4th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

silver lining

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

silver lining

More YouTube for PeteF.!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s political history as shown in his tv appearances, tweets, draft dodging, party switching, concealment of any school grades from grade school thru college, tax returns, non disclosure agreements and his use of alias to inflate his public persona lead me to believe he is not quite what he claims to be. I certainly do not see him as fearless and insightful, but as paranoid and narrow minded.
After failing as a real estate developer, he now runs a business that is largely compromised of selling his brand. He was very successful at that, largely because of his affiliation with The Apprentice. He has had several books ghost written for him, each time he has gotten lots of press by getting sort of involved in politics. He ran for President once before and has apparently since forgotten about that since he non-lies and claims he didn’t.
The source of his wealth after his failure as a developer is sketchy at best, Russian at worst. His sons have both said they get all the funding they need from Russia.
I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time. I’m not willing to concede to him this country.
Happy 4th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you go from "zero political history" to your canned version of anti-Trump talking points as his political history. So did you lie the first time or this time. Or was this just a Trumpian shift.

Thanks, I guess, for giving us your version. Personally, I didn't ask for it. I expected it to be pretty much along the lines of what you say here. Half truths, innuendo, irrelevance, and really nasty personal opinion. You actually outdo Trump when you gear yourself up to it.