Assault on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What can Trump do to stop the bleeding?

[Lewis]

So? Did I defend Ben Rhodes? Is it a good thing that a guy who's 31 is a "senior" adviser to the President? One error does not excuse the other. Or, to put it more simply, "If everybody were jumping off the bridge would you do it too?"

So...some of you guys try to set the rules of debate - no reference to Obama and his administration - Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
Context.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The "but...but...Hillary" defense is very popular as well. It's a spin off of the "everybody's doing it, so it's OK" excuse that children employ and parents reject, but for some reason adults think it's OK to use when it comes to politics.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

In the academy, they teach 3 responses to a question of a superior officer: (1) Yes Sir; (2) No Sir (3) No excuse Sir.

 

[InTheLight]

So...some of you guys try to set the rules of debate - no reference to Obama and his administration - Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
Context.

Reference it all you want. But if you are going to condemn Obama for something and then when Trump does something similar you excuse it, that doesn't cut it either. Again, I thought draining the swamp was going to get rid of all this politics as usual. All the typical DC corruption. Instead Trump supporters are using it as a defense to excuse his actions.

So, when Obama got into office and kept referencing the terrible economic conditions he inherited from his predecessor, you were OK with that, right?

 

[InTheLight]

There are scientists with executive experience, even if not state-wide experience.

And, yes, no scientist would be able to be an expert in the totality of scientific knowledge required to run the Dept. of Energy, but a scientist in a relevant field such as physics (at the PhD level, preferably) would at least be able to participate in the discussion at much higher level than a non-scientist. Perry's going to be completely at the mercy of the experts. A scientist would be able to engage them and possibly uncover important insights, etc. Perry wouldn't even know the questions to ask.

I don't blame him. I wouldn't know them either! That's why I think a scientist is best suited for the position.

Yes, it would be ideal. I'm not going to get too worked up about the department of Energy. Same thing with DeVos at Education.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So? Did I defend Ben Rhodes? Is it a good thing that a guy who's 31 is a "senior" adviser to the President? One error does not excuse the other. Or, to put it more simply, "If everybody were jumping off the bridge would you do it too?"

Hey, since we are rifling through presidents....do you guys remember Richard M. Nixon.....he was a POTUS who got raked over the coals because he knew about the Watergate break-in....OK, somebody would say he ordered it. But look at the magnitude of it all & tell me if he needed to be raked over the coals, made to resign in shame yada yada.

 

[Lewis]

In the academy, they teach 3 responses to a question of a superior officer: (1) Yes Sir; (2) No Sir (3) No excuse Sir.

lol...well my service was many years ago. Now I get to answer honestly.

 

[carpro]

He could subordinate his own interest to those of the US Citizenry. It is his duty to the people of the USA that both shapes & characterizes the POTUS.

He has done so more than any other president in modern history.

He's actually keeping his promises to the people that elected him.

 

[carpro]

Hey, since we are rifling through presidents....do you guys remember Richard M. Nixon.....he was a POTUS who got raked over the coals because he knew about the Watergate break-in....OK, somebody would say he ordered it. But look at the magnitude of it all & tell me if he needed to be raked over the coals, made to resign in shame yada yada.

Of course. He was a republican.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He has done so more than any other president in modern history.

He's actually keeping his promises to the people that elected him.

Give me some examples

 

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...lup-62-americans-say-trump-keeps-his-promises

Gallup: 62% of Americans Say Trump Keeps His Promises

 

[InTheLight]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...lup-62-americans-say-trump-keeps-his-promises

Gallup: 62% of Americans Say Trump Keeps His Promises

So he keeps 6 out of 10 promises. That's a grade of "D".

 

[carpro]

So he keeps 6 out of 10 promises. That's a grade of "D".

One of the dumbest things I have ever seen from you.

You've really got it bad.

 

[InTheLight]

One of the dumbest things I have ever seen from you.

You've really got it bad.

Yep, attack me, don't comment on the fact that only 6 out of 10 people think Trump keeps his promises.

 

[carpro]

Yep, attack me, don't comment on the fact that only 6 out of 10 people think Trump keeps his promises.

That's it. Run and hide. Pretend you didn't say

"So he keeps 6 out of 10 promises. That's a grade of "D"."

I hate to break this to you , but "people" and "promises" are not the same thing.

You're really eat up with it. Trump is living in your head rent free. Hate will do that to you.

 

[InTheLight]

That's it. Run and hide. Pretend you didn't say

"So he keeps 6 out of 10 promises. That's a grade of "D"."

I hate to break this to you , but "people" and "promises" are not the same thing.

I hate to break this to you but Earth Wind and Fire asked you to give examples of the promises he's kept and YOU posted a poll that said 62% of people think Trump is keeping his promises. So you set the criteria that "people" = "promises" and then you attack me for using it.

You're really eat up with it. Trump is living in your head rent free. Hate will do that to you.

Blah, blah, blah. Attack InTheLight.

Yes or no, 6 out of 10 people thinking Trump keeps his promises is a great ratio?

 

[Rolfe]

I would look at a 62% positive-result poll as having achieved success 62% of the time and having failed 38%.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would look at a 62% positive-result poll as having achieved success 62% of the time and having failed 38%.

A trip to the moon on gossamer wings

 

[just-want-peace]

And there it is--the "but...but...Obama" defense.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

Only way to point out the blatent hypocricy of the Left/Never Trumpers/Zero worshipers etc. This is the only way the hypocricy will ever be highlighted.

 

[InTheLight]

Only way to point out the blatent hypocricy of the Left/Never Trumpers/Zero worshipers etc. This is the only way the hypocricy will ever be highlighted.

Fine, point out the hypocrisy of the left. (You'll be busy 24/7/365!) But condemn errors on the right when they occur. Don't just point to a similar error by Dems and say, "see".

 

[InTheLight]

There are scientists with executive experience, even if not state-wide experience.

And, yes, no scientist would be able to be an expert in the totality of scientific knowledge required to run the Dept. of Energy, but a scientist in a relevant field such as physics (at the PhD level, preferably) would at least be able to participate in the discussion at much higher level than a non-scientist. Perry's going to be completely at the mercy of the experts. A scientist would be able to engage them and possibly uncover important insights, etc. Perry wouldn't even know the questions to ask.

I don't blame him. I wouldn't know them either! That's why I think a scientist is best suited for the position.

Yes, I think you are correct. (Click on link below)

https://twitter.com/i/videos/832303185826033664?embed_source=facebook