[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

We need ambulances to get the injured to Hospitals, but that doesn't mean everyone deserves to own an ambulance.

I'ma flip this on its head to make a point.

Just because we have ambulances, doesn't mean people don't need CPR training or first-aid kits or medical emergency kits on hand. Just because we have fire departments, doesn't mean people shouldn't have fire extinguishers available. Just because we have federal, state, municipal, and local emergency management departments/agencies/offices, doesn't mean people don't need bug-out bags or disaster supply kits. Just because we have roadside assistance through insurance or departments of transportation, doesn't mean people don't need roadside emergency kits in their vehicles.

Likewise, just because we have cops and animal control, doesn't mean people don't need firearms for protection. And no, it's not just a "numbnuts breaks into the house" vigilante masturbatory fantasy scenario or "exploding varmints" thing, it's also a "there's a potentially rabid animal on the property" or "predator threatening pets and livestock" thing. It's preferable to call animal control, but to be frank preference goes right out the fucking window when Fluffy's life (or your bank account to vet bills) is on the line. That's just a reality of rural living if you're going to have pets or livestock.

If protection from wild animals is a legit concern, there are definitely better ways than 'guns for everyone'. But no one wants to admit that solving a problem often means solving multiple problems.

There's no "if". It is. And, nowhere have I been or demonstrated myself an "unlimited guns for everyone" person. Kindly knock the straw man, excluded middle, crap off. And indeed, to that I'd add no one wants to admit they don't have all available information, and don't know what's best for everyone, least of all when it comes to this particular issue. Especially when, as I said before, excluding accidental death and suicide from fatality numbers, the single biggest correlation to and predictor for firearm homicide other than race is Gini coefficient, which indicates solving for firearm-involved and violent crime in general means solving for socioeconomic inequality and civil unrest.

 

[Agema]

At any rate, I'm not sure if you're aware, but at the time he was saying Democrat things, he very well may have been registered as a Democrat. It's not that he was a Republican trying to appeal to his social circle, the man was a Democrat, by his words, his associations, and his registration. And his personal life that could make a Kennedy blush.

But I am the one saying he is a Democrat, so it's on me to justify it, and that's difficult, because it's very difficult to pin down any definition of Democrat. Both major parties are big tents with many (often conflicting) opinions within them, but at least the Republican Party has some consistency over time. You can get whiplash from the changes in the Democratic Platform over time. The way to track the Democratic Party is really by appealing to the name itself: Democracy. However public opinion swings, the Democrats will be there. Arguably that's a good thing, that's a signal of actual representation, but it's also pretty much exactly what you're saying Donald Trump did. He found the ideas that would make him popular and ran with them. That itself is a Democrat-type thing.

The Democratic Party may well have shifting ideology: but at least it and its politicians have tended to believe in their ideology of the place and time, and that it has represented real political feelings of real people with real intent. In that sense, there's something genuine about the Democratic Party

That really is not the same thing as Trump. Trump is largely an ideological void with no real beliefs, no personal opinions of any strength, no real interest in what anyone else believes. It's all a sham, a lie, an empty shell. He just echos what his audience wants to hear because he thinks it makes him look good, without qualms or principles.

I'm with you here. I don't know why the man resents Obama so much other than the color of his skin. I mean, given Trump's character, it's possible Obama slighted him personally at some point and Trump held the grudge. But less than a year into Obama's presidency, Trump decides to never be a Democrat again, feels like white flight.

I think you're right that there's another grudge above race - there is some incident (A White House Press Association dinner?) where Obama or some comedian mocked Trump, who was in the audience. The camera picks up Trump. You can see how he absolutely cannot see the humour in it - the rigidity of his expression is a picture of restrained rage and indiginity. As a narcissist, how infuriating and humilating that must have been for him. I'm sure that is an awful lot to do with his decision to annihilate everything Obama did as president.

That Donald Trump's presidency has been so conservative is basically an accident. As you said, the man's a narcissist. He does things to make people like him and punches back at people who attack him. He's caught in a current of doing conservative things and getting positive feedback from conservatives, and he's already been getting demonized by the left since he picked a fight with Obama a decade ago. That is in no way set in stone. If the Democrats want him to do something, they basically just need to ask nicely. He's down for criminal justice reform, he's down for gun control, he's down for pharmaceutical regulations. If ever they treated him as "not Hitler", his ego would put him right back in their camp again.

It's not that simple.

Trump could be buttered up to some extent by Democratic politicians, but they're nothing compared to the cheers he gets at those Republican rallies. That's why he still does them, as if still campaigning. Again, naracissist: what can he love more than the entirely uncritical cheering, hollering and passion of a crowd hanging on his every word. It must be akin to crack cocaine. He's burnt his bridges ever getting that sort of acclamation from the Democrats.

He's thoroughly hitched himself to a wagon, at least for the time being - it's too late to go back to Democrat-like positions (at least whilst he's in office).

 

[Saelune]

We need ambulances to get the injured to Hospitals, but that doesn't mean everyone deserves to own an ambulance.

I'ma flip this on its head to make a point.

Just because we have ambulances, doesn't mean people don't need CPR training or first-aid kits or medical emergency kits on hand. Just because we have fire departments, doesn't mean people shouldn't have fire extinguishers available. Just because we have federal, state, municipal, and local emergency management departments/agencies/offices, doesn't mean people don't need bug-out bags or disaster supply kits. Just because we have roadside assistance through insurance or departments of transportation, doesn't mean people don't need roadside emergency kits in their vehicles.

Likewise, just because we have cops and animal control, doesn't mean people don't need firearms for protection. And no, it's not just a "numbnuts breaks into the house" vigilante masturbatory fantasy scenario or "exploding varmints" thing, it's also a "there's a potentially rabid animal on the property" or "predator threatening pets and livestock" thing. It's preferable to call animal control, but to be frank preference goes right out the fucking window when Fluffy's life (or your bank account to vet bills) is on the line. That's just a reality of rural living if you're going to have pets or livestock.

If protection from wild animals is a legit concern, there are definitely better ways than 'guns for everyone'. But no one wants to admit that solving a problem often means solving multiple problems.

There's no "if". It is. And, nowhere have I been or demonstrated myself an "unlimited guns for everyone" person. Kindly knock the straw man, excluded middle, crap off. And indeed, to that I'd add no one wants to admit they don't have all available information, and don't know what's best for everyone, least of all when it comes to this particular issue. Especially when, as I said before, excluding accidental death and suicide from fatality numbers, the single biggest correlation to and predictor for firearm homicide other than race is Gini coefficient, which indicates solving for firearm-involved and violent crime in general means solving for socioeconomic inequality and civil unrest.

CPR, fire extinguishers and disaster supplykits are tools to protect life. Guns are for killing, solely for killing and nothing else. If the former are used properly, no one dies. If guns are used properly, something HAS to die.

Also I never said you were a guns for everyone person, but you were defending guns, and guns for everyone people have used that defense. Strawman my ass.

Those issues are made worse by the people who tend to be pro-gun, since they are usually right-wingers and racist and anti-government helping the needy.

 

[Saelune]

I think you're right that there's another grudge above race - there is some incident (A White House Press Association dinner?) where Obama or some comedian mocked Trump, who was in the audience. The camera picks up Trump. You can see how he absolutely cannot see the humour in it - the rigidity of his expression is a picture of restrained rage and indiginity. As a narcissist, how infuriating and humilating that must have been for him. I'm sure that is an awful lot to do with his decision to annihilate everything Obama did as president.

Trump lacks literally any trace of humanity. Our criticism of Trump is revenge for how he and the Republicans treated us and Obama for his presidency, and our next President needs to continue that revenge for this one. Lucky for them our revenge involves giving them affordable healthcare...

 

[tstorm823]

The Democratic Party may well have shifting ideology: but at least it and its politicians have tended to believe in their ideology of the place and time, and that it has represented real political feelings of real people with real intent. In that sense, there's something genuine about the Democratic Party

That really is not the same thing as Trump. Trump is largely an ideological void with no real beliefs, no personal opinions of any strength, no real interest in what anyone else believes. It's all a sham, a lie, an empty shell. He just echos what his audience wants to hear because he thinks it makes him look good, without qualms or principles.

Your description certainly applies to some Democrats, but very much not all of the politicians. To put a finer point on it, I see little difference between a Donald Trump and a Lyndon Johnson other than circumstance.

I think you're right that there's another grudge above race - there is some incident (A White House Press Association dinner?) where Obama or some comedian mocked Trump, who was in the audience. The camera picks up Trump. You can see how he absolutely cannot see the humour in it - the rigidity of his expression is a picture of restrained rage and indiginity. As a narcissist, how infuriating and humilating that must have been for him. I'm sure that is an awful lot to do with his decision to annihilate everything Obama did as president.

Nah, that happened in 2011, around the time Trump got involved in birtherism. Trump had already been on the attack and deserved every bit of that roast. It doesn't answer why in 2009 Trump went "you know what, I'm done with the Democrats." I've got 3 theories, and the possibility that all of them contributed: 1) Trump's a racist and resented the black president, 2) Obama did something Trump considered a personal slight against him, and 3) Trump was a Hillary Clinton supporter and was upset his primary candidate lost.

It's not that simple.

Trump could be buttered up to some extent by Democratic politicians, but they're nothing compared to the cheers he gets at those Republican rallies. That's why he still does them, as if still campaigning. Again, naracissist: what can he love more than the entirely uncritical cheering, hollering and passion of a crowd hanging on his every word. It must be akin to crack cocaine. He's burnt his bridges ever getting that sort of acclamation from the Democrats.

He's thoroughly hitched himself to a wagon, at least for the time being - it's too late to go back to Democrat-like positions (at least whilst he's in office).

No, it isn't too late to take up the Democrats on legislation [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-talks-key-senators-gun-control-legislation-n1042251]

If the Democrats, at least the ones who are genuine in their beliefs are aren't power hungry psychopaths, let the presidency of Donald Trump slide by without doing anything, they're idiots. Like, a party can control the Presidency, and the House, and the Senate, and have Supreme Court support and still have difficulty getting things done if the people are still split on party lines. Donald Trump is clearly willing to support some of the Democrat agenda, but has the support of a lot of Republican voters. They'd lose those voters if they tried to do something like sweeping healthcare reform, but for a lot smaller things (like criminal justice reform) having Donald Trump in office is better than having a Democrat president because the meaningless (R) next to his name will bring some Republicans with him.

 

[Agema]

Your description certainly applies to some Democrats, but very much not all of the politicians. To put a finer point on it, I see little difference between a Donald Trump and a Lyndon Johnson other than circumstance.

There are plenty of people in this world who perhaps their main objective is power, and they hitch themselves to a convenient party or ideology that gets them there without necessarily much deep attachment, Lyndon Johnson may have been one. But I hardly think the Republicans have been short of such people in high office either.

Nah, that happened in 2011, around the time Trump got involved in birtherism. Trump had already been on the attack and deserved every bit of that roast. It doesn't answer why in 2009 Trump went "you know what, I'm done with the Democrats." I've got 3 theories, and the possibility that all of them contributed: 1) Trump's a racist and resented the black president, 2) Obama did something Trump considered a personal slight against him, and 3) Trump was a Hillary Clinton supporter and was upset his primary candidate lost.

Trump was apparently mostly a Republican supporter numerous times throughout his life. From what I've read, from the 80s throughout the 90s he was apparently registed Republican, then briefly Reform Party. He went Democrat 2001 (yet said in 2005 that he had voted for GWB, and endorsed McCain in 2008), and back to the Republicans 2009.

No, it isn't too late to take up the Democrats on legislation [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-talks-key-senators-gun-control-legislation-n1042251]

Apparently, that's not even a law under discussion. It's a "framework" to facilitate states making their own decisions. It's a big fat ball of zip: the sort of thing to pretend something's being done whilst actually doing nothing.

If the Democrats, at least the ones who are genuine in their beliefs are aren't power hungry psychopaths, let the presidency of Donald Trump slide by without doing anything, they're idiots. Like, a party can control the Presidency, and the House, and the Senate, and have Supreme Court support and still have difficulty getting things done if the people are still split on party lines. Donald Trump is clearly willing to support some of the Democrat agenda, but has the support of a lot of Republican voters. They'd lose those voters if they tried to do something like sweeping healthcare reform, but for a lot smaller things (like criminal justice reform) having Donald Trump in office is better than having a Democrat president because the meaningless (R) next to his name will bring some Republicans with him.

I'm sure they will take what they can get. But there is a complication for the Democrats that Trump is utterly detested by the Democratic base: it could actually prove less popular to work with him even on policy that aligns with Democratic interests than to resist it. That's polarisation for you. Trump has been utterly polarising in ways other Republicans (Mitt Romney, say) wouldn't have been.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

That's the kind of partisan political hackery I expect out of Mike Pence. There is no possible way to prove he's not a Democrat.

Drat, that logic is ironclad.

(Just want to be clear this is sarcasm. A person who ran for the Republicn ticket of course cannot be a Democrat. By definition. Also, there is more political viewpoints that Democrat and Republican. And different version of what it means to be Republican.)

Yep, there's more to politics than binary choices between the two major parties. And yes, within those parties, you can find a wide variety of views.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Trump could be buttered up to some extent by Democratic politicians, but they're nothing compared to the cheers he gets at those Republican rallies. That's why he still does them, as if still campaigning.

Semi regular reminder that it isn't "as if": Donald Trump filed his re-election campaign with the Federal Election Commission the day he was inaugurated. Those are actual campaign rallies, he's collecting actual reelection donations, etc. Otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to extort his cultists for money.

He's been actually campaigning for two and a half years now.

 

[Agema]

Semi regular reminder that it isn't "as if": Donald Trump filed his re-election campaign with the Federal Election Commission the day he was inaugurated. Those are actual campaign rallies, he's collecting actual reelection donations, etc. Otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to extort his cultists for money.

He's been actually campaigning for two and a half years now.

Maybe so, but there are all sorts of other ways he could raise money. He's doing them mostly because he craves the boost to his ego.

 

[tstorm823]

Apparently, that's not even a law under discussion. It's a "framework" to facilitate states making their own decisions. It's a big fat ball of zip: the sort of thing to pretend something's being done whilst actually doing nothing.

I mean, you're also describing the Canadian healthcare system. Something being broken down by state or territory doesn't make it nothing.

I'm sure they will take what they can get. But there is a complication for the Democrats that Trump is utterly detested by the Democratic base: it could actually prove less popular to work with him even on policy that aligns with Democratic interests than to resist it. That's polarisation for you. Trump has been utterly polarising in ways other Republicans (Mitt Romney, say) wouldn't have been.

They're the ones who made him detested. It's not for nothing that almost every complaint about Trump gets answered by someone with "Obama did it first". That doesn't make it right just because Obama did something first, but it displays the motivation of people criticizing Trump so vehemently. They're trying to make people hate Trump. They did it themselves. And even still, if they pass gun control legislation, Trump will officially have a stronger gun control legacy than Obama. There were 2 major shootings in the year 2009, the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, and they passed nothing. Right now, the legislature is split and the president is the most publicly reviled president of our lifetimes (if not of all time), and there's a strong possibility they pass something meaningful.

 

[Saelune]

Apparently, that's not even a law under discussion. It's a "framework" to facilitate states making their own decisions. It's a big fat ball of zip: the sort of thing to pretend something's being done whilst actually doing nothing.

I mean, you're also describing the Canadian healthcare system. Something being broken down by state or territory doesn't make it nothing.

I'm sure they will take what they can get. But there is a complication for the Democrats that Trump is utterly detested by the Democratic base: it could actually prove less popular to work with him even on policy that aligns with Democratic interests than to resist it. That's polarisation for you. Trump has been utterly polarising in ways other Republicans (Mitt Romney, say) wouldn't have been.

They're the ones who made him detested. It's not for nothing that almost every complaint about Trump gets answered by someone with "Obama did it first". That doesn't make it right just because Obama did something first, but it displays the motivation of people criticizing Trump so vehemently. They're trying to make people hate Trump. They did it themselves. And even still, if they pass gun control legislation, Trump will officially have a stronger gun control legacy than Obama. There were 2 major shootings in the year 2009, the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, and they passed nothing. Right now, the legislature is split and the president is the most publicly reviled president of our lifetimes (if not of all time), and there's a strong possibility they pass something meaningful.

You keep making wild claims without any evidence. Stop it.

Obama did not do everything Trump does wrong first, but rather Trump does things that are wildly worse than what Obama was criticized for...by Trump himself often. There is literally an entire subreddit dedicated to tweets Trump has made, usually about Obama, that accurately describe Trump's own terribleness. 2014 Trump would apparently hate 2017 Trump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/503973652522885120]

 

[Agema]

They're the ones who made him detested. It's not for nothing that almost every complaint about Trump gets answered by someone with "Obama did it first".

If you really think people are upset just because of technical complaints that Trump fired off some executive orders when he probably should have gone through Congress and law, you're really not getting why the left is particularly upset with Trump.

Trump that made himself detested - the non-stop blatant lying and bullshitting, the abuse, the encouragement of violence, the racism, the blatant pandering to the far right, etc... and that was even before he was president.

I think some people were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt between the election and taking office to see if he could comport himself with some semblance of decency, and he trashed those hopes within a month. After that it's policy, and I'm absolutely sure Obama was not first to undermining the ACA, slashing environmental policies, assisting discrimination of homosexuals and trans-, etc.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's not for nothing that almost every complaint about Trump gets answered by someone with "Obama did it first". That doesn't make it right just because Obama did something first, but it displays the motivation of people criticizing Trump so vehemently. They're trying to make people hate Trump. They did it themselves.

Nice try, but Obama's shortcomings really have nothing to do with whether Trump deserves to be hated.

 

[tstorm823]

You keep making wild claims without any evidence. Stop it.

Obama did not do everything Trump does wrong first, but rather Trump does things that are wildly worse than what Obama was criticized for...by Trump himself often. There is literally an entire subreddit dedicated to tweets Trump has made, usually about Obama, that accurately describe Trump's own terribleness. 2014 Trump would apparently hate 2017 Trump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/503973652522885120]

I'm not sure if you were trying to evidence my claims, but thanks I guess for giving an entire twitter of how similar Trump and Obama are.

Also, I notice that you had no response about my defense of CBP this time. Have you finally realized that you're wrong?

If you really think people are upset just because of technical complaints that Trump fired off some executive orders when he probably should have gone through Congress and law, you're really not getting why the left is particularly upset with Trump.

Trump that made himself detested - the non-stop blatant lying and bullshitting, the abuse, the encouragement of violence, the racism, the blatant pandering to the far right, etc... and that was even before he was president.

I think some people were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt between the election and taking office to see if he could comport himself with some semblance of decency, and he trashed those hopes within a month. After that it's policy, and I'm absolutely sure Obama was not first to undermining the ACA, slashing environmental policies, assisting discrimination of homosexuals and trans-, etc.

No, there was never any benefit of the doubt. Donald Trump declared his candidacy and within a month the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) were already drawing comparisons to nazis and Hitler. It's been non-stop for the last 4 years. They do it deliberately, they try to make any registered Republican as divisive as possible because they think it pushes people left. George W. Bush was Hitler, John McCain was Hitler, Mitt Romney was Hitler, now Trump is Hitler. Republicans are all Hitler. And like, for what it's worth, the strategy works sometimes. I was watching a twitch streamer who happened to be talking politics, who claimed he was once a conservative but moved left in college. And then he goes on to list a bunch of things Mitch McConnell would probably agree with and calls them liberal positions, and tries to describe Republicans and completely misses the target. Because there's a big collection of horrible partisan liars who want everyone to hate the GOP. (Also, this same streamer was repeating the Elizabeth Warren nonsense about the Trump economy working only for the rich. She seems to have missed the memo that wages are up, mostly at the bottom, and the stock market is questionable at best. But lies catch on, I'm afraid.)

Like, undermining the ACA is fine. The ACA is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation in history. Not evil, just really dumb. But stop yourself for a moment. Wipe you brain clean of the bias and lies that have been fed to us. What did Trump want to do to the ACA? Repeal and replace. And we have the benefit of hindsight now that when Trump wants to replace something, it really could just be a couple minor adjustments and his name on the paper. If Democrats had gone "sure, let us in on this", the ACA might actually have been repealed and replaced with something that lacked the ACA's shortcomings. It could have been better, all they had to do was not be partisans. I know the bias and lies they feed us tell you that Trump is Hitler and wanted to repeal the ACA and let poor people all die, but trust your eyes and see what Trump replacement looks like.

DACA could have been enshrined in legislation instead of hanging on by a thread. Not only that, it would have been expanded. What would it have taken? Like 10% more wall. All they had to do was not be partisan hacks insistent on describing Republicans as Hitler for 10 minutes, and they'd have passed immigration legislation that Obama couldn't get through. And it was possible, because Trump was president. Probably still is possible, but alas, Donald Trump is still apparently Hitler.

 

[Trunkage]

You keep making wild claims without any evidence. Stop it.

Obama did not do everything Trump does wrong first, but rather Trump does things that are wildly worse than what Obama was criticized for...by Trump himself often. There is literally an entire subreddit dedicated to tweets Trump has made, usually about Obama, that accurately describe Trump's own terribleness. 2014 Trump would apparently hate 2017 Trump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/503973652522885120]

I'm not sure if you were trying to evidence my claims, but thanks I guess for giving an entire twitter of how similar Trump and Obama are.

Also, I notice that you had no response about my defense of CBP this time. Have you finally realized that you're wrong?

If you really think people are upset just because of technical complaints that Trump fired off some executive orders when he probably should have gone through Congress and law, you're really not getting why the left is particularly upset with Trump.

Trump that made himself detested - the non-stop blatant lying and bullshitting, the abuse, the encouragement of violence, the racism, the blatant pandering to the far right, etc... and that was even before he was president.

I think some people were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt between the election and taking office to see if he could comport himself with some semblance of decency, and he trashed those hopes within a month. After that it's policy, and I'm absolutely sure Obama was not first to undermining the ACA, slashing environmental policies, assisting discrimination of homosexuals and trans-, etc.

No, there was never any benefit of the doubt. Donald Trump declared his candidacy and within a month the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) were already drawing comparisons to nazis and Hitler. It's been non-stop for the last 4 years. They do it deliberately, they try to make any registered Republican as divisive as possible because they think it pushes people left. George W. Bush was Hitler, John McCain was Hitler, Mitt Romney was Hitler, now Trump is Hitler. Republicans are all Hitler. And like, for what it's worth, the strategy works sometimes. I was watching a twitch streamer who happened to be talking politics, who claimed he was once a conservative but moved left in college. And then he goes on to list a bunch of things Mitch McConnell would probably agree with and calls them liberal positions, and tries to describe Republicans and completely misses the target. Because there's a big collection of horrible partisan liars who want everyone to hate the GOP. (Also, this same streamer was repeating the Elizabeth Warren nonsense about the Trump economy working only for the rich. She seems to have missed the memo that wages are up, mostly at the bottom, and the stock market is questionable at best. But lies catch on, I'm afraid.)

Like, undermining the ACA is fine. The ACA is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation in history. Not evil, just really dumb. But stop yourself for a moment. Wipe you brain clean of the bias and lies that have been fed to us. What did Trump want to do to the ACA? Repeal and replace. And we have the benefit of hindsight now that when Trump wants to replace something, it really could just be a couple minor adjustments and his name on the paper. If Democrats had gone "sure, let us in on this", the ACA might actually have been repealed and replaced with something that lacked the ACA's shortcomings. It could have been better, all they had to do was not be partisans. I know the bias and lies they feed us tell you that Trump is Hitler and wanted to repeal the ACA and let poor people all die, but trust your eyes and see what Trump replacement looks like.

DACA could have been enshrined in legislation instead of hanging on by a thread. Not only that, it would have been expanded. What would it have taken? Like 10% more wall. All they had to do was not be partisan hacks insistent on describing Republicans as Hitler for 10 minutes, and they'd have passed immigration legislation that Obama couldn't get through. And it was possible, because Trump was president. Probably still is possible, but alas, Donald Trump is still apparently Hitler.

Remember when Obama was called an Ethopian Muslim terrorist by the media for at least 9 years (its still going on, so probably make that 12.) But, you know, lefties bad, stop talk

 

[Seanchaidh]

And we have the benefit of hindsight now that when Trump wants to replace something, it really could just be a couple minor adjustments and his name on the paper. If Democrats had gone "sure, let us in on this", the ACA might actually have been repealed and replaced with something that lacked the ACA's shortcomings. It could have been better, all they had to do was not be partisans.

You cannot possibly believe this.

 

[tstorm823]

Remember when Obama was called an Ethopian Muslim terrorist by the media for at least 9 years (its still going on, so probably make that 12.) But, you know, lefties bad, stop talk

I do remember Obama being called a Muslim. Everyone Republican of prominence disavowed it. John McCain shamed one of his supporters on stage publicly for suggesting it. You don't really get the same the other way. Cause that's just what the Republican party does: it defends people who deserve defending.

Trump doesn't. Trump acts like a democrat. That's why 2016 was such a mess, and 2020 is shaping up to be as well, because there's not a candidate on either side who won't brazenly accuse the other of murder at the drop of a hat.

And we have the benefit of hindsight now that when Trump wants to replace something, it really could just be a couple minor adjustments and his name on the paper. If Democrats had gone "sure, let us in on this", the ACA might actually have been repealed and replaced with something that lacked the ACA's shortcomings. It could have been better, all they had to do was not be partisans.

You cannot possibly believe this.

Is that not the most obvious thing in the world? Like, nobody thinks the ACA is perfect. People have higher opinions of it than I do, but the Democratic primary debates have thrown it under the bus already. If the Democrats had said "yeah, sure, there are some changes we'd like too" and started negotiations, we'd have Trumpcare by now. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[Shadowstar38]

I do remember Obama being called a Muslim. Everyone Republican of prominence disavowed it. John McCain shamed one of his supporters on stage publicly for suggesting it. You don't really get the same the other way. Cause that's just what the Republican party does: it defends people who deserve defending.

Trump doesn't. Trump acts like a democrat. That's why 2016 was such a mess, and 2020 is shaping up to be as well, because there's not a candidate on either side who won't brazenly accuse the other of murder at the drop of a hat.

Granted, the DNC appear to have an issue with being self critical. But If you frame that particular negative behavior as being characteristic of Democrats in and of itself, aren't you just further polarizing people? Which is like, the thing you want them to stop doing.

 

[Saelune]

You keep making wild claims without any evidence. Stop it.

Obama did not do everything Trump does wrong first, but rather Trump does things that are wildly worse than what Obama was criticized for...by Trump himself often. There is literally an entire subreddit dedicated to tweets Trump has made, usually about Obama, that accurately describe Trump's own terribleness. 2014 Trump would apparently hate 2017 Trump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/503973652522885120]

I'm not sure if you were trying to evidence my claims, but thanks I guess for giving an entire twitter of how similar Trump and Obama are.

Also, I notice that you had no response about my defense of CBP this time. Have you finally realized that you're wrong?

Ofcourse you aren't sure. Because you keep saying things like 'Trump is a Democrat'.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith by any stretch of that phrase.

If you cant defend your claims, dont make them.

 

[Saelune]

Remember when Obama was called an Ethopian Muslim terrorist by the media for at least 9 years (its still going on, so probably make that 12.) But, you know, lefties bad, stop talk

I do remember Obama being called a Muslim. Everyone Republican of prominence disavowed it. John McCain shamed one of his supporters on stage publicly for suggesting it. You don't really get the same the other way. Cause that's just what the Republican party does: it defends people who deserve defending.

Trump doesn't. Trump acts like a democrat. That's why 2016 was such a mess, and 2020 is shaping up to be as well, because there's not a candidate on either side who won't brazenly accuse the other of murder at the drop of a hat.

And we have the benefit of hindsight now that when Trump wants to replace something, it really could just be a couple minor adjustments and his name on the paper. If Democrats had gone "sure, let us in on this", the ACA might actually have been repealed and replaced with something that lacked the ACA's shortcomings. It could have been better, all they had to do was not be partisans.

You cannot possibly believe this.

Is that not the most obvious thing in the world? Like, nobody thinks the ACA is perfect. People have higher opinions of it than I do, but the Democratic primary debates have thrown it under the bus already. If the Democrats had said "yeah, sure, there are some changes we'd like too" and started negotiations, we'd have Trumpcare by now. Why would you think otherwise?

Citation needed.