#SummaCumLiar

[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.