#SummaCumLiar

[Pete F.]

The Trump slam ‘Summa Cum Liar’ is trending right now on Twitter, largely in part to the man who coined it, George Conway, also known as Kellyanne Conway’s husband.

George Conway
@gtconway3d
I will concede him this: Wherever he goes and whatever he does, Trump will always be summa cum liar. #SummaCumLiar

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Trump slam ‘Summa Cum Liar’ is trending right now on Twitter, largely in part to the man who coined it, George Conway, also known as Kellyanne Conway’s husband.

George Conway
@gtconway3d
I will concede him this: Wherever he goes and whatever he does, Trump will always be summa cum liar. #SummaCumLiar

He is a liar, an adulterer, and a lot of bad things. And he grew the national economy at more than 3%, which Obama's economic advisor said was impossible.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He is a liar, an adulterer, and a lot of bad things. And he grew the national economy at more than 3%, which Obama's economic advisor said was impossible.

Like I said before the right and the boot licking GOP are ok with the means as long as they justify the ends. Too many superlatives (none positive) to describe Trump, the convictions mounting, the lies hard to even count at this point, the quantities of quality people jumping ship, the American brand diminished world wide, but we are winning right?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I said before the right and the boot licking GOP are ok with the means as long as they justify the ends. Too many superlatives (none positive) to describe Trump, the convictions mounting, the lies hard to even count at this point, the quantities of quality people jumping ship, the American brand diminished world wide, but we are winning right?

What nefarious mean did Trump use to grow the economy at more than 3%

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I said before the right and the boot licking GOP are ok with the means as long as they justify the ends. Too many superlatives (none positive) to describe Trump, the convictions mounting, the lies hard to even count at this point, the quantities of quality people jumping ship, the American brand diminished world wide, but we are winning right?

I'm on the right, but don't lick his boots. I do think there's value in remembering that his presidency is judged on both his personal ethics, and whether or not his policies make our lives better. I see you, Pete, Spence, WDMSO, and to a lesser extent Paul, giving 100% weight to his personal ethics, and 0% weight to his results. Would you do that with the guy who runs your company? Would you rather have a decent guy who can't do anything right, or a mean SOB who cheats on his wife at home, but leads your company to success?

"Like I said before the right and the boot licking GOP left are ok with the means painting him in the most negative light possible as long as they justify the ends forget how it felt when he destroyed their candidate and made them all look like morons in the process. Too many superlatives (none positive) to describe Trump (not even 'one who is improving the economy, despite all the evidence to the contrary), the convictions mounting (none against him, but why let that get in the way), the lies hard to even count at this point, the quantities of quality people jumping ship (people we all hated when they first joined the ship, but let's revise history because it helps us paint him in a negative light), the American brand diminished world wide (tell that to ISIS), but we are winning right? Ummm, yes."

Fixed it for you.

By what standard is the 'American Brand' diminished worldwide? Are immigrants refusing to come here, and choosing Canada instead? Is that what all these caravans' ultimate goal is, to walk to Canada? Because our brand is diminished? If our brand can handle a guy who apologized for all of our shortcomings, it can handle a guy who thinks we're all that and a bag of chips.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm on the right, but don't lick his boots. I do think there's value in remembering that his presidency is judged on both his personal ethics, and whether or not his policies make our lives better. I see you, Pete, Spence, WDMSO, and to a lesser extent Paul, giving 100% weight to his personal ethics, and 0% weight to his results. Would you do that with the guy who runs your company? Would you rather have a decent guy who can't do anything right, or a mean SOB who cheats on his wife at home, but leads your company to success?

You might also note that the personal ethics that most complain about occurred before he became President. His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office. Nor, if his past actions have not been continued in his role of POTUS, should they be considered the "means" he uses to get things done as President.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You might also note that the personal ethics that most complain about occurred before he became President. His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office. Nor, if his past actions have not been continued in his role of POTUS, should they be considered the "means" he uses to get things done as President.

Agreed.

This all boils down to, he beat them. he beat them at their own game - fighting dirty, lying, smearing, and insulting his opponents. He beat them at their own game, he pulverized them at their own game, by winning the election. Then to top it all off, he's making things better by many rational standards (not debt, not by refusing to build a wall for 2 years, not by praising Kim Jong Un or whatever his name is). He made them look stupid, and continues to make them look stupid.

Larry Summers was Obama's top economic advisor (I think?), he said 3% growth was as realistic as the tooth fairy, then bam, Trump did it.

Do you see Summers on TV, admitting Trump was right and he was wrong? Nope. Because they aren't capable of that kind of honesty. Trump did what Summers said was impossible.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You might also note that the personal ethics that most complain about occurred before he became President. His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office. Nor, if his past actions have not been continued in his role of POTUS, should they be considered the "means" he uses to get things done as President.

Hard for Republicans to use this argument after the Whitewater investigation and the Clinton impeachment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He is a liar, an adulterer, and a lot of bad things. And he grew the national economy at more than 3%, which Obama's economic advisor said was impossible.

I believe he said it was not impossible but rather unsustainable because it was dependent largely on increasing deficit spending. Right now that appears to be exactly what is happening.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe he said it was not impossible but rather unsustainable because it was dependent largely on increasing deficit spending. Right now that appears to be exactly what is happening.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did he also add that reducing taxes and regulations would also be part of what it depended on?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe he said it was not impossible but rather unsustainable because it was dependent largely on increasing deficit spending. Right now that appears to be exactly what is happening.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he said it was as realistic as the tooth fairy. kudos to him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Trump’s Big Tax Cuts Did Little to Boost Economic Growth
His revisions to regulations did more, but all at a cost that history will reveal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...conomic-growth

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s Big Tax Cuts Did Little to Boost Economic Growth
His revisions to regulations did more, but all at a cost that history will reveal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...conomic-growth

Do you subscribe to some sort of irrational, Trump-bashers feed?

Your declined to admit a correlation between corporate tax cuts and corporate investment.

(1) did it mention the investment undertaken by companies whose CEO's said clearly, that additional investment was directly because of the tax cuts? Comcast, which owns NBC and NBC and is therefore no Trump boot licker, announced massive investments and said it was because of the tax cuts. Bloomberg might not like that, that's there problem.

(2) How about increased consumer spending? Some consumer spending was triggered by tax cuts, and some corporate investments were undertaken because of consumer spending.



It's pretty hard to predict what the economy would have done, had things been different. Lots of moving pieces.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you subscribe to some sort of irrational, Trump-bashers feed?

Just look outside State News

Your declined to admit a correlation between corporate tax cuts and corporate investment.

(1) did it mention the investment undertaken by companies whose CEO's said clearly, that additional investment was directly because of the tax cuts? Comcast, which owns NBC and NBC and is therefore no Trump boot licker, announced massive investments and said it was because of the tax cuts. Bloomberg might not like that, that's there problem.

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t make it true market wide. Farmers and farm equipment and supply dealers did not increase investments.

(2) How about increased consumer spending? Some consumer spending was triggered by tax cuts, and some corporate investments were undertaken because of consumer spending.

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t make it market wide. It’s like saying global warming doesn’t exist because we had a cold snap.

It's pretty hard to predict what the economy would have done, had things been different. Lots of moving pieces.

You’re right, it might have stopped it’s growth.
Perhaps what he did enabled it to continue the upward movement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re right, it might have stopped it’s growth.
Perhaps what he did enabled it to continue the upward movement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But the current success does not have to be conjectured. Nor is it, at this point, merely an upward trend--it is well beyond that. And it was predicted by the geniuses who crafted the previous economic agenda that what is happening now was not possible. Given all that, why such a strenuous attempt to discredit what is happening and to show how bad, stupid, wrong and potentially destructive it is supposed to be?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, you're wrong.

You said this: "You might also note that the personal ethics that most complain about occurred before he became President. His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office."
Ken Starr and his leaky apprentices, one of whom was Kavanaugh (had to throw that in), spent two years investigating Whitewater, which occurred prior to Clinton's election and when they could not find what they wanted, the Republicans moved on to other things, since they were out to "get" him. That was called "a witch hunt" but by the Democratic minority, not the President.
Luckily for Clinton his approval rating was double what Trump's is and actually increased to 70% the week of his impeachment.
That's a far cry from Trump's, which floats one side or the other of 40%.

You'll note that I specifically said "His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office." Was Clinton accused of besmirching the Presidency because of Whitewater or anything he did before he became President? His past actions, whatever they were or were not, did not besmirch the Office of President. They may have said something about his character before he became President. But his lecherous, unfaithful character, while actually being President, is what disgraced the office of President.

I also said, which you did not include here, was that "if his past actions have not been continued in his role of POTUS, should they be considered the "means" he uses to get things done as President?"

It is not reasonable nor logical to say that what Trump did in the past and is not doing while in office are the means or method that he uses now to do things like growing the economy. That makes no sense.

So the rabbit hole of Whitewater and Vince Foster have nothing to do with what I said. They are a change of subject.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You'll note that I specifically said "His past actions should not be used to accuse him of besmirching his present office." Was Clinton accused of besmirching the Presidency because of Whitewater or anything he did before he became President? His past actions, whatever they were or were not, did not besmirch the Office of President. They may have said something about his character before he became President. But his lecherous, unfaithful character, while actually being President, is what disgraced the office of President.

I also said, which you did not include here, was that "if his past actions have not been continued in his role of POTUS, should they be considered the "means" he uses to get things done as President?"

It is not reasonable nor logical to say that what Trump did in the past and is not doing while in office are the means or method that he uses now to do things like growing the economy. That makes no sense.

So the rabbit hole of Whitewater and Vince Foster have nothing to do with what I said. They are a change of subject.

If what you say is the correct path to follow in looking at a president , why did the Republican Congress waste two years investigating Whitewater and how is that different than Trump’s history
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If what you say is the correct path to follow in looking at a president , why did the Republican Congress waste two years investigating Whitewater and how is that different than Trump’s history
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wasn't laying out a "correct" path to follow. I was pointing out illogical thinking. It would have been illogical to say that Clinton was accomplishing something because of what he did in the past if he was not doing the same thing while President.

You are so focused on discrediting Trump that you often cannot respond to what is actually being said, or to what the subject of a thread is. You must, for some reason (Trump hate?), inject your repetitive anti-trump rhetoric even when it has nothing to do with the conversation--except for the running anti-Trump conversation in your head.

As for a correct path to determining how to look at a President, I would say, first of all, look to see how he is performing as a President.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I wasn't laying out a "correct" path to follow. I was pointing out illogical thinking. It would have been illogical to say that Clinton was accomplishing something because of what he did in the past if he was not doing the same thing while President.

You are so focused on discrediting Trump that you often cannot respond to what is actually being said, or to what the subject of a thread is. You must, for some reason (Trump hate?), inject your repetitive anti-trump rhetoric even when it has nothing to do with the conversation--except for the running anti-Trump conversation in your head.

As for a correct path to determining how to look at a President, I would say, first of all, look to see how he is performing as a President.

Trump doesn’t need my help to discredit him, he does it on his own assisted by his foolish followers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump doesn’t need my help to discredit him, he does it on his own assisted by his foolish followers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The part about not needing your help is obviously true. He has done very well without your assistance. The rest of what you say sounds like bitter nastiness.

[wdmso]

The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!"

Trump already trying to discredit the next election shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!"

Trump already trying to discredit the next election shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you, no really, thank you.....I needed a good laugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

PeteF. Has exposed Trump again!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Love Corden on Trumps response to a reporters question about cooperating with the recent requests, where Trump responded “I cooperate with everyone all the time”. Cordens response on late night was rich, sure as long as you don’t count the special counsel, the FBI, every democratic, half his cabinet and every country in the UN other than Russia, then yes he cooperates with everyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

If anyone thinks there is a chance that they are nearly as dishonest as Pres. Trump, they should be examining whether they are a good person or not.

[Sea Dangles]

My guess is there are not/ were not...a lot of people who thought he was a good person. Many who have held the office were not good people. The redeeming quality is the direction that the country is heading gives hope to many.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device