Any one of you Trumpists want to step up to the plate and give it your best go at defending this flaming Hypocrisy?
Trump: “simple rules... hire American”
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) February 18, 2017
Mar-a-Lago hiring foreign workers https://t.co/Z0OUdoAAqj
Trump winery, too https://t.co/ONTaLod4Z2 pic.twitter.com/YVHTISCG17
It's hard to debate with someone who isn't here. I mean, you can't be hear because you swore you'd vacate. I'd just taken it as a given that you were a man of your word.
Now if you want to correct the record and declare yourself a lying sack of s**t, well, then, please do so and I'll be happy to debate about the pros and cons of s**t all day and night..
So, if you're not a Trumpist, what are you? An obamaite? A hillaryite? What do you really have to offer to even engage in a meaningful discussion other than what you dig up on the internet?
Bless your heart. As a southern boy who's been saying "ya'll" since "knee high to a grasshopper" I know you know what that means...
Hire American- show us you birth certificate.
Legal immagrant- show us your documentation
Don't have either of the above? The next available ICE agent will be glad to assist you. Travel safely.
...bada bing!
The Rock
Smart.
"So, if you're not a Trumpist, what are you? An obamaite? A hillaryite?"
I'm a Constitutional Conservative. I identify myself with a set of values and principles, not with a party or a person.
Like him or not, he's the POTUS.
Like him or not, the alternative was Hillary.
Like him or not, the alternative today is Chucky Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Princess Fauxahontas.
The election is over. Your guy and my guy lost in the primary.
Deal with it.
Exactly.
We've been dealt our hand and we have two choices:
1. Make the best of it and Play to Win, or;
2. Bitch and moan because we weren't dealt four-of-a-kind or a straight flush.
That is most decidedly false.
There is a grand canyon of difference between those who held their nose and voted for Trump because the alternative was Hillary, and those who voted for Trump and are going out of their way to defend his outrageous attitudes, behavior, and some positions that have nothing to do with Conservatism or the Constitution. The majority here have aligned themselves with the latter group, sadly.
It's apparent that Josh does this because he refuses to admit he's taken the wrong path to dedicate his entire focus on condemning Trump at any and all costs. Like many here have stated, it's an ego thing....
BS. You're nothing more than a social conservative that wants to force his ideals on others, which is something that real conservatives don't do. You're nothing more than a culture warrior. You'd legislate away more rights than you'd free up if you were in power.
".......and some positions that have nothing to do with Conservatism or the Constitution."
True, but note your use of the word "some."
NO politician will do everything you want, so the best you do is to get as much as you can and you certainly don't crap on them at every turn as a result.
You, OTOH, are clearly incredibly emotionally invested in seeking out everything and anything Trump might do that you don't like, while staying silent on the things he's done which are clearly Constitutionally Conservative positions.
joshua, take a ong hard look at what has been written here. It sums you up perfectly. Kyle hit the nail dead on the head.
God Bless men
".....those who voted for Trump and are going out of their way to defend his outrageous attitudes, behavior, and some positions that have nothing to do with Conservatism or the Constitution. The majority here have aligned themselves with the latter group, sadly."
Nva - "True, but note your use of the word "some.""
I admit that I don't monitor everything posted on this forum, but I challenge either Josh or Kyle to quote any specific examples where a Bowsite CF poster has defended any outrageous attitudes, behaviors, and anti-conservative or anti- constitutional positions that Trump has exhibited, (EDIT for clarity: *much less the majority of those who voted for Trump in the General Election*). I know that I haven't seen it done.
Now, I've witnessed plenty of accusations fly around here. But accusing someone of something doesn't infer they are guilty of that accusation. Once again, the time has come to back up your accusations....
I call BS.
I did not agree with all you posted. You added a sentence at the end that I did not include.
So you lied and misrepresented what I clearly wrote.
Why?
Only by you lad...
This can be a difficult medium to communicate by at times, and this is one of them.
Now, for you to jump at such an opportunity to accuse someone of lying for taking what you wrote at face value was entirely unwarranted.
When someone posts a quote that is simply a part of what someone else claimed, it's clear to all (but you, it seems) that that part, and that part only was what they were referring to. Otherwise, they would have included more than just that part.
The "and," as any reasonable person would clearly know, unless they had a personal agenda to misrepresent my clear intentions, was simply a cut-n-paste of a post and was in no way an agreement that my post meant more that what followed in what I posted.
"True" can also mean "valid point" AND the use of "but" can also mean "however". That alone means disagreement with the statement made with which the comment was made to start with.
I'm simply pointing out what's clear to all here but you.
You misrepresented what I wrote, then worse, you then persist in misrepresenting what I wrote.
Well, since GJ left. it still happens quite a bit, just not quite as often.
He's presuming you understand the English language and the easy to understand idea that he's agreeing only with what he quoted. That's not much of a stretch. You're clearly articulate, so it's hard to believe you don't understand what people write.
I've written here before: if there are two interpretations, and one of them is unreasonable or stupid, that's likely not what he meant. Instead, you took the interpretation that was unreasonable. I won't speculate as to what reason you had for doing so. In the future, try taking the more reasonable of the two. You may find less to argue about.
Of course it's the writer's responsibility. But you blame the reader.
Josh's post was specifically aimed at condemning Bowsiter's who voted for Trump. Nothing more; nothing less.
From there, Josh invoked special condemnation for the majority of those BS voters for allegedly "going out of their way to defend his outrageous attitudes, behavior, and some positions that have nothing to do with Conservatism or the Constitution.
To which you replied, "True", but Trump won so act accordingly.
And you blame me for misunderstanding what you meant to say, going as far as to call me unreasonable and a liar.
Could I have asked you to be more specific about what you meant to say? Yes, and looking back I wish I would've. But was I required to? No, but seeing how you tend to react, I regret not pursuing that path first.
So, I tried to quench the argument by pointing out that it's an easy mistake to make in this medium....which is a fact. But you insist on blaming the reader.
But a responsible writer would've made an attempt to clarify their intent immediately when the misunderstanding became apparent, and do that without disparaging the reader. Plain & simple. But it appears that route is beneath you....
Nva's is only interested in being bitter... Psychological compensation , it's what feeble narcissists do...
