nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

This is the most stressful job in the world people often act out of character and to make blind comparisons to drive an agenda is dangerous and disingenuous.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

It's funny but Obama was actually one of the most Progressive Presidents we've had!!!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

It's only by a very narrow and purist view that you seem unable to recognize all that Obama did despite unprecedented opposition from Republicans. Hillary would've been able to improve upon what Obama accomplished rather than destroy a lot of things as Trump has been doing. Somehow this seems to have escaped your attention.

You are getting worse by every post- I have NEVER said Obama didn't get anything done. And the only criticism I have of him is what he didn't do when he HAD BOTH houses of congress on his side. He didn't go after the banks and Wall street like he should have that's about it. This utter nonsense about purist view not being able to recognize what he did, is way over the top. Calm down and smell the #covfefe

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

Here's the thing, however. Trump has changed the the calculus. It is no longer an issue of nuanced policy or even political ideology. It is a question a basic competency, of our president getting through a week without grossly and a demonstratively embarrassing the United States of America, doing damage to the office and forever changing political discourse.

I have zero problem concluding just about anybody who ran in either primaries in 2016, including Hillary Clinton, would do laps around Donald Trump in just the appearing to be qualified to be President threshold.

Yes I know you have zero problem concluding that. however I have lots of problems concluding that. It's a difference we won't resolve on a basketball forum.
I also think this whole "embarrassing the US" meme is largely oversold. I know nothing about your background or if you have ever spend significant time outside the US, but we have been the laughing stock for a the whole world for several decades. People just play by our rules because they either want money or they are afraid of our nukes.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

Perhaps, but I don't think there's any question he could muster the appropriate empathy to perform simple tasks. I think you miss the point if you think anyone is asking you to assess Trump in a ideological versus practical matter.

I think people are effectively asking you, 'did you not see Trump would be this big of an incompetent,' or 'do you think he isn't that disaterous of an incompetent?'

Nope, there wasn't anything ideological about my evaluation. I used Obama's slight shift in ideology as example of how people change under pressure of POTUS job. Don't read this in a narrow literal way.
If the most damage Trump does is embarrassing the US in front of te world, I can definitely live with it.

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

This is the most stressful job in the world people often act out of character and to make blind comparisons to drive an agenda is dangerous and disingenuous.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

It's funny but Obama was actually one of the most Progressive Presidents we've had!!!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

It's only by a very narrow and purist view that you seem unable to recognize all that Obama did despite unprecedented opposition from Republicans. Hillary would've been able to improve upon what Obama accomplished rather than destroy a lot of things as Trump has been doing. Somehow this seems to have escaped your attention.

You are getting worse by every post- I have NEVER said Obama didn't get anything done. And the only criticism I have of him is what he didn't do when he HAD BOTH houses of congress on his side. He didn't go after the banks and Wall street like he should have that's about it. This utter nonsense about purist view not being able to recognize what he did, is way over the top. Calm down and smell the #covfefe

Bruh you really do need to check yourself. Obama did in fact achieve much of what he wanted within the constraints of the political environment he had to operate in. It's easy to sit back and complain about the lack of prosecution of Bankers and Wall Street guys but let's remember that there was an absolute Four Alarm Fire going on. Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.

The POINT is that Obama did a LOT that was worthy of protection and by NOT voting for Hillary it pretty much meant those voters could give a F about all the Progressive things that were achieved or could be achieved going forward, because CONSERVATIVES stand in opposition to all those things! Where's the logic in Voting or Not Voting against your own best interests?

Trump and the Republicans want to take a wrecking ball to what was accomplished the last 8 years. They can't govern because they don't believe in government. They LIE about caring for deficits as they look to AGAIN blow up the budget while taking away funding and services Americans depend on.

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

This is the most stressful job in the world people often act out of character and to make blind comparisons to drive an agenda is dangerous and disingenuous.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

It's funny but Obama was actually one of the most Progressive Presidents we've had!!!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

It's only by a very narrow and purist view that you seem unable to recognize all that Obama did despite unprecedented opposition from Republicans. Hillary would've been able to improve upon what Obama accomplished rather than destroy a lot of things as Trump has been doing. Somehow this seems to have escaped your attention.

You are getting worse by every post- I have NEVER said Obama didn't get anything done. And the only criticism I have of him is what he didn't do when he HAD BOTH houses of congress on his side. He didn't go after the banks and Wall street like he should have that's about it. This utter nonsense about purist view not being able to recognize what he did, is way over the top. Calm down and smell the #covfefe

Bruh you really do need to check yourself. Obama did in fact achieve much of what he wanted within the constraints of the political environment he had to operate in. It's easy to sit back and complain about the lack of prosecution of Bankers and Wall Street guys but let's remember that there was an absolute Four Alarm Fire going on. Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.

The POINT is that Obama did a LOT that was worthy of protection and by NOT voting for Hillary it pretty much meant those voters could give a F about all the Progressive things that were achieved or could be achieved going forward, because CONSERVATIVES stand in opposition to all those things! Where's the logic in Voting or Not Voting against your own best interests?

Trump and the Republicans want to take a wrecking ball to what was accomplished the last 8 years. They can't govern because they don't believe in government. They LIE about caring for deficits as they look to AGAIN blow up the budget while taking away funding and services Americans depend on.

Dude you are in love with Obama that's ok, he wasn't "constrained" in any way in the first two years. He had both houses of congress and he could have actively chosen to fight the right wing narrative after the market crash. Instead he chose to play coy and reappoint Bush appointees. That was STUPID - rationalize all you want.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes I know you have zero problem concluding that. however I have lots of problems concluding that. It's a difference we won't resolve on a basketball forum.

That's a bull**** answer, we're not resolving anything here - we're just talking. It's clear you say you have lots of problems concluding that, but it's also clear you have lots of problems actually explaining why.

I don't think so - I am talking and t=you are knitpicking what I say - and anyone who has "talked" with you on this forum will probably vouch for that.

I also think this whole "embarrassing the US" meme is largely oversold. I know nothing about your background or if you have ever spend significant time outside the US...

Who said I was talking about outside the US?

If the most damage Trump does is embarrassing the US in front of te world, I can definitely live with it.

I think the further this discussion goes the further it's illustrated some of us can look at the same thing and see something completely different. I look at Trump handling Puerto Rico and I see someone who has no capacity for empathy and whose need for personal approval shapes every thought and action while lives are in the balance.

We've elected a man whose basic job description is empathy who literally has none, and is not even self-aware enough to be able to hide his neediness.

The fact that people are normalizing this some sort of partisan, false equivalency issue is disturbing.

No one has normalized has normalized anything, what he is doing sucks - I expected it to suck. So it's in line with my expectations. And yes if the damage he does stays on the low end of my negative expectations of him, I can live with it. Positioning that as me trying to normalize it is basically looking for a fight.

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

This is the most stressful job in the world people often act out of character and to make blind comparisons to drive an agenda is dangerous and disingenuous.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

It's funny but Obama was actually one of the most Progressive Presidents we've had!!!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

It's only by a very narrow and purist view that you seem unable to recognize all that Obama did despite unprecedented opposition from Republicans. Hillary would've been able to improve upon what Obama accomplished rather than destroy a lot of things as Trump has been doing. Somehow this seems to have escaped your attention.

You are getting worse by every post- I have NEVER said Obama didn't get anything done. And the only criticism I have of him is what he didn't do when he HAD BOTH houses of congress on his side. He didn't go after the banks and Wall street like he should have that's about it. This utter nonsense about purist view not being able to recognize what he did, is way over the top. Calm down and smell the #covfefe

Bruh you really do need to check yourself. Obama did in fact achieve much of what he wanted within the constraints of the political environment he had to operate in. It's easy to sit back and complain about the lack of prosecution of Bankers and Wall Street guys but let's remember that there was an absolute Four Alarm Fire going on. Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.

The POINT is that Obama did a LOT that was worthy of protection and by NOT voting for Hillary it pretty much meant those voters could give a F about all the Progressive things that were achieved or could be achieved going forward, because CONSERVATIVES stand in opposition to all those things! Where's the logic in Voting or Not Voting against your own best interests?

Trump and the Republicans want to take a wrecking ball to what was accomplished the last 8 years. They can't govern because they don't believe in government. They LIE about caring for deficits as they look to AGAIN blow up the budget while taking away funding and services Americans depend on.

Dude you are in love with Obama that's ok, he wasn't "constrained" in any way in the first two years. He had both houses of congress and he could have actively chosen to fight the right wing narrative after the market crash. Instead he chose to play coy and reappoint Bush appointees. That was STUPID - rationalize all you want.

Characterize it how you want but I'm merely defending the MANY gains and accomplishments that you're too ready to piss on cuz they didn't do everything you wanted.

During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others.

Universal healthcare aside none of those accomplishments made the economy better.

Sure you wanna keep making this about your one pet peeve but there was a lot of MAJOR work done. Again perfect being the enemy of the good. You almost NEVER get everything you want but you should want to protect the gains you've made rather than have much of it destroyed as Trump and the Republicans are trying to do. I noticed you never speak on that. You never acknowledge how much damage is being done and attempted constantly by Trump and the Republicans.

Now you are being silly. I am and have consistently been a critic of Trump. But he hasn't done any policy damage, they haven't passed any major policies. He has dismantled the ACA, which sucks but the ACA was dead in arrival.

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

This is the most stressful job in the world people often act out of character and to make blind comparisons to drive an agenda is dangerous and disingenuous.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

It's funny but Obama was actually one of the most Progressive Presidents we've had!!!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

It's only by a very narrow and purist view that you seem unable to recognize all that Obama did despite unprecedented opposition from Republicans. Hillary would've been able to improve upon what Obama accomplished rather than destroy a lot of things as Trump has been doing. Somehow this seems to have escaped your attention.

You are getting worse by every post- I have NEVER said Obama didn't get anything done. And the only criticism I have of him is what he didn't do when he HAD BOTH houses of congress on his side. He didn't go after the banks and Wall street like he should have that's about it. This utter nonsense about purist view not being able to recognize what he did, is way over the top. Calm down and smell the #covfefe

Bruh you really do need to check yourself. Obama did in fact achieve much of what he wanted within the constraints of the political environment he had to operate in. It's easy to sit back and complain about the lack of prosecution of Bankers and Wall Street guys but let's remember that there was an absolute Four Alarm Fire going on. Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.

The POINT is that Obama did a LOT that was worthy of protection and by NOT voting for Hillary it pretty much meant those voters could give a F about all the Progressive things that were achieved or could be achieved going forward, because CONSERVATIVES stand in opposition to all those things! Where's the logic in Voting or Not Voting against your own best interests?

Trump and the Republicans want to take a wrecking ball to what was accomplished the last 8 years. They can't govern because they don't believe in government. They LIE about caring for deficits as they look to AGAIN blow up the budget while taking away funding and services Americans depend on.

Dude you are in love with Obama that's ok, he wasn't "constrained" in any way in the first two years. He had both houses of congress and he could have actively chosen to fight the right wing narrative after the market crash. Instead he chose to play coy and reappoint Bush appointees. That was STUPID - rationalize all you want.

Characterize it how you want but I'm merely defending the MANY gains and accomplishments that you're too ready to piss on cuz they didn't do everything you wanted.

During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others.

Universal healthcare aside none of those accomplishments made the economy better.

Sure you wanna keep making this about your one pet peeve but there was a lot of MAJOR work done. Again perfect being the enemy of the good. You almost NEVER get everything you want but you should want to protect the gains you've made rather than have much of it destroyed as Trump and the Republicans are trying to do. I noticed you never speak on that. You never acknowledge how much damage is being done and attempted constantly by Trump and the Republicans.

Now you are being silly. I am and have consistently been a critic of Trump. But he hasn't done any policy damage, they haven't passed any major policies. He has dismantled the ACA, which sucks but the ACA was dead in arrival.

Jesus you really are something. HOW ABOUT JUST SAVING THE ECONOMY FIRST? You talk like it was a lock that things would be worked out to avoid absolute catastrophe. Obama and the Dems were out there pushing the car out of the ditch and all the while the Republicans had their foot on the brake making things harder. You seem to have forgotten just how bad things really were, which is convenient for your argument.

The ACA was not dead on arrival. This is the kind of BS that just ignores the fact that Republicans have been actively working against its success from day one. Perhaps you've just ignored all the things they've been doing but some of us have not. You need to wake the F up.

The fact that Trump and the Republicans haven't been fully successful doesn't wipeout the fact that they are continually trying to enact policy that would be detrimental to the country. Their policies are craven and dangerous. Trump and his Administration are dangerous.

A law so poorly constructed that it can't stand two years without being essentially rendered worthless by actions of people who didn't break the law is dead on arrival. If Obama was expecting Republicans to jump through hoops and take on their own voter base to make his law successful then it's fairly clear who here needs to wake the fukk up.

Tillerson is next to go.

misterearl wrote:‪He has called NFL players sons of bitches and Mexicans rapists. He mocked a disabled reporter and bragged that he likes to assault women. But don’t call him a “moron” or he’ll throw a temper tantrum. ‬

Tillerson is next to go.

He called NFL players who protested SOb's with no malice intended.

He didn't call Mexicans rapists. He said that Mexico is sending criminals over the boarder on of those people are rapists.

I'm not trying to argue that Trump isn't a lying sack of ****, I believe that he is, but the truth is also important too.

misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with relgious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this. Same thing with the wedding cake. Nobody should be forced to perform an act if it violates their religious beliefs

Just because a majority of the GOP believes that players shouldn't kneel dosen't mean that it is racist.

GOP isn't saying that Muslims should stay out or that the KKK is fine. There is no need for this kind of crap.