In the comments section of a recent post at Craig's blog (http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2022/11/youd-think.html), Dan spoke of "volumes of Trump's actual wrongdoing", to which I responded, ""Volumes"??? How about just a page, Danny-boy? Maybe even a paragraph from a page." "Danny-boy" responded with an extremely long list of that which he thinks qualifies as "volumes of actual wrongdoing". A quick scan (which is all I've given it) suggests that there's not all that much "actual" wrongdoing. I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. So what I will do now is go through each one to determine the truth of the claim. It should be kept in mind that all of which follows is based on the claim of "actual" wrongdoing.
But a few points:
I don't know if I will bother going through them all in fact. I suspect there will be redundancies. I hope to keep track of truths, lies and whether or not the "wrongdoing" took place during his presidency or had any effect on his ability to govern. Not sure how that will look on the page, so we'll just have to see how things go. Let's begin:
1. "President Trump wasn’t that bad...other than when he incited an insurrection against the government,"
Wow! Right off the bat Dan lies...twice!! Trump not only "incited" nothing against the government, there was no "insurrection". It was a just protest that got out of hand. Liars on the left intentionally use the term "insurrection" so as to tie Trump to it in order to deny him any ability to run for re-election. What Trump "incited" was peaceful protest.
Truth=0/Dan lying=2
2. "mismanaged a pandemic that killed a million Americans"
It's a lie to say that Trump mismanaged what was a novel virus when in fact he marshaled the private sector to work with his administration to provide PPEs, develop a vaccine and close off travel to and from the country of COVID's origin. To pretend he mismanaged requires drawing a specific line from any policy of his to deaths which resulted from it. Indeed, there's been far more "mismanagement" from Fauci and various Dem governors than by Trump.
Truth=0/Dan lying=3
3. "separated children from their families,"
Aside from Trump continuing a policy set forth by his predecessor, the impotent Barack Obama, the separation of children from their parents is a consequence of parental criminality, in this case, illegally crossing our border. Thus, for children to be separated from their parents upon suspicion alone of a crime being perpetrated is not at all "wrongdoing" in any sense of the term.
Truth=0/Dan lying=4
4. "lost those children in the bureaucracy,"
https://www.dailywire.com/news/nyt-fact-check-no-trump-didnt-separate-1500-james-barrett
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/illegal-immigrant-cages-bus-for-babies-lost-children/
https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-didnt-lose-1500-immigrants/
Note: I am not going to guarantee proof or evidence of any of my responses where I don't feel like doing so. Why should I? Dan's list is long and provides no evidence of any kind for any of it. But should I feel like doing so I will completely at my own discretion and on my own volition.
In any case, we see again that not only is Dan's claim false, it ignores a far worse example of what he claimed about Trump. Also, as he tied it to the previous point, it counts as two lies since the "lost" kids weren't "separated" from their families or parents by any faction of our government. Thus...
Truth=0/Dan lying=6
5. "tear-gassed peaceful protesters on Lafayette Square so he could hold a photo op holding a Bible in front of a church"
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/09/ig-report-exonerates-trump-did-not-tear-gas-peaceful-protesters-to-clear-park-for-bible-photo-op/
Truth=0/Dan lying=7
6. "tried to block all Muslims from entering the country"
While it is cool to say this is "wrong", the intention behind it was to protect Americans and came after yet another islam-inspired mass shooting. Thus, I can grant a half point to truth here, given that many would disagree with a total ban on muslims, me not being among them. I demand more serious vetting of all immigrants and visitors to the country, ESPECIALLY from muslim majority countries where American hatred is rampant.
Truth=.5/Dan lying=7
7. "got impeached,
got impeached again"
I put these two together because he chose to add them separately, my point being that getting impeached is not "wrongdoing". It's the consequence of possible wrongdoing, but not wrongdoing itself. What's more, Trump was acquitted both times. What's more, he did nothing wrong in the first impeachment, and in the second, he wasn't even president regardless of the false charge of inciting an "insurrection". Thus, I could justly regard this as four lies instead of just two, but we'll let it go and see what comes down the pike.
Truth=.5/Dan lying=9
8. "had the worst jobs record of any president in modern history"
This is a case of lefties playing with numbers again. It is well known that the unemployment rate was at its lowest since the early 1960's. How can one's jobs record be the worst ever with such a great stat? What's more, even with the harm the COVID situation caused to the job market, mostly due to the policies of Dem governors rather than from Trump, the recovery was beginning before the 2020 election. Also, when some wish to pretend Obama was doing great things economically, his own people admitted most of the jobs created during his failed presidency were part-time, government, low paying temp jobs. Biden has been simply the beneficiary of people going back to work after the needless shutdowns. In any case, unless Dan can point to policies intended to destroy jobs, it's ludicrous to regard a jobs record as "actual wrongdoing" so...
Truth=.5/Dan lying=10
9. "pressured Ukraine to dig dirt on Joe Biden"
This is just a lie. Period.
https://www.libertynation.com/transcript-of-trump-call-to-zelenksy-wheres-the-dirt/
Truth=.5/Dan lying=11
10. "fired the FBI director for investigating his ties to Russia"
This is just stupid, given the fact there never was any ties between Trump and Russia which should have elicited an investigation and those who initiated that investigation damned well knew it the whole time.
Truth=.5/Dan lying=12
11. "bragged about firing the FBI director on TV"
Dan desperately needs this to be "wrongdoing". It is not. Reporting a move he made to fire a guy who never deserved the position in the first place is only wrong in that it took as long as it did to realize the guy was a cretin.
Truth=.5/Dan lying=13
12. "took Vladimir Putin’s word over the US intelligence community"
Except that he had legit reason to doubt the word of US intel leaders:
https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/trump-reluctant-to-trust-us-intelligence-because-of-comey-brennan/
So while it wasn't a good expression of his true beliefs, it wasn't "wrongdoing". It was an indictment of what he called "bad cops"...the very type Dan loves. Nonetheless, I'm going to give this one another half point for the optics, while giving Dan lying another point for pretending he meant something nefarious.
Truth=1/Dan lying=14
13. "diverted military funding to build his wall"
What is the purpose of the military if not to defend us against foreign invaders? The Supreme Court agreed and found his use of the funds to be appropriate. And while legit separation of powers arguments can be made in opposition to the move, the move itself was on behalf of the American people against the constant invasion of illegals and the many illegal activities which result. That's only "wrongdoing" in the minds of Trump-haters, when the entirety of Congress should have been granting expenditures to secure our border, but wasn't.
Truth=1/Dan lying=15
14. "caused the longest government shutdown in US history,"
The wrongdoing is by the Congress for failing to support his efforts to secure our border...unless Dan's referring to something different. In any case, the point remains. Is a difference between the executive branch and the legislative resulting in shutdown automatically the fault of the executive branch? Can that be said without an examination of what led to the shutdown? No. Dan only seeks to portray this as "actual wrongdoing" because Trump was involved.
Truth=1/Dan lying=16
15. " called Black Lives Matter a “symbol of hate"
Speaking the truth is never "wrongdoing".
Truth=1/Dan lying=17
16. "lied nearly 30,000 times"
Dan couldn't list 30 actual lies Trump told as president about his work as president. He simply parrots what the liars at the Washington Post say, because liars stick together, especially when hating on Trump.
Truth=1/Dan lying=18
17. "banned transgender people from serving in the military"
Not "wrongdoing" at all. It's logical and necessary for unit cohesion to stop using the military as an experiment in social perversion. Trump gets high marks for this move, as it is actually just and righteous. Only pervs like Dan regard denying pervs to be a bad thing.
Truth=1/Dan lying=19
18. "ejected reporters from the White House briefing room who asked tough questions"
That's just funny.
Truth=1/Dan lying=20
19. "vetoed the defense funding bill because it renamed military bases named for Confederate soldiers"
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/06/30/trump-vows-to-veto-defense-bill-if-it-renames-u-s-bases-named-for-confederate-figures/
Truth=1/Dan lying=21
20. "refused to release his tax returns"
Given there is no law or righteous reason to demand that any politician MUST present tax returns for public scrutiny, to call this "wrongdoing" is simply partisan crapola and thus another lie.
Truth=1/Dan lying=22
OK. I'm going to leave it there for now, as there is so much left to review in just Dan's first comment listing nonsensical examples of "wrongdoing"...actual or otherwise, but mostly the latter. I'll continue later.
14 comments:
I think we SHOULD ban all Muslims. Their theology/political ideology is the destruction of everyone but Muslims. They want to destroy Israel and the USA as top missions on their list.
Muslim teaching, i.e. Qur'an and the Hadith teaches you to be friendly and pretend allegiance to a nation/community, etc until you are in a position of strength and then you can take over.
The problem becomes, how many are "secular" Muslims who have to claim the religion to avoid abuse and/or death and how many are real Muslims being friendly while awaiting take-over.
I would have no problem if muslims were prevented from entering our country, particularly to stay, and for all the reasons you list. It's unfortunate, but more so is how morons would regard our position as rank bigotry rather than acknowledgement of some really harsh realities. "Profiling" is a just and effective means of protection. It would be unreasonable to fear all dogs because one is bitten once. It would be slightly less so to fear a breed of dog because the single bite came from a particular breed. It would even less unreasonable if one is bitten several times by dogs of the same breed to fear that breed, but also it would be reasonable to fear dogs in general after multiple dogs bit someone regardless of the breed. muslims have a unique history of murder and terrorism which flows from their culture. Most other examples are not as such. I don't know how we can effectively protect ourselves without a ban, and without a ban, we're taking a risk which doesn't exist with any other demographic.
Wow. Do you all even hear yourselves?
One day, those filthy, bigoted, sin-sick hearts of yours will meet the prince of peace, grace and welcome and your eyes will be open and your hearts broken at your vile graceless, godless words.
I hope you two have the sense to repent and mourn your bigotry and the harm you cause.
Dan
The only bigotry here, Dan, is yours against people of faith, people who are conservative, and people who actually think. You're the moron of which I spoke, chiming in with your hate as I knew you would. Neither Glenn nor I wish to regard muslims with suspicion. They'd have gone a long way in preventing it by not murdering non-muslims (and other muslims, too, actually) for the last 1400 years. Living by an ideology of such hatred, must as you do, does not leave thinking people with much choice than to be distrustful. I'm good with it. People around me are safer for my suspicion. People around you have been pasted with the ultimate "kick me" sign on their backs.
Secular Muslims don't set up their own enclaves in places like Detroit, et al. Study what's been happening in Germany where they opened the doors to Muslims.
Dan,
You are a fool. SPeaking truth about Islam/Muslims is not bigotry, nor have I caused harm to anyone. The "Prince of Peace" is hated/misrepresented by Muslims.
Dan's too concerned about posturing as a loving Christian than about true concern for potential victims of radicalized muslims, their "religion" providing the means of shielding themselves from exposure. The irony is rich. Dan and the radicalized hiding their true selves behind claims of goodness.
I have never really been impressed by Mr. Chatterbox's use of sources. They are usually just okay at best and very basic. Most of his posts are just citations from other sources. He has rocks in his head. You can even hear them rolling around. He's a Rolling Stone, alright.
Someone has tried to post under an "unknown" for a name, speaking of someone he refers to as "Mr. Chatterbox". If this person wishes to try again under an actual name, with an explanation for his cryptic comment, I'll consider posting it.
My father had the nicknanme "Chatterbox" when he was in high school, and I also had it when I was in high school In the Army I mostly called "Chat."
People like to make fun of other peoples' names. But some people do it maliciously, which is what I find nowadays.
I am the "unknown" of which you speak. Glenn Chattfield believes in that horrid and abominable doctrine of eternal security which teaches people to live lives of immorality and lawlessness. You too will stand by and say nothing about that abject heresy?!?!?
David. Thanks for identifying yourself. I appreciate it. Too many leave comments with nothing to identify them as unique from other "anonymous" or "unknown" visitors.
However, I don't appreciate visitors choosing random opportunities to attack other visitors. Regardless of whether or not Glenn is a proponent of "eternal security", I've never seen him advocate for living lives of immorality and lawlessness. As such, I don't see "eternal security" advocating for living such lives, either, and thus do not see the concept as necessarily being heretical, but only an opinion of particular teachings of Scripture held by many.
I welcome your visits here, but insist you stay on topic. I've enough trouble keeping the usual suspects on topic.
I have never really been impressed by Mr. Chatterbox's use of sources. They are usually just okay at best and very basic. Most of his posts are just citations from other sources. He has rocks in his head. You can even hear them rolling around. He's a Rolling Stone, alright.
My sources are as good as anyone else's who use factual information. Demonstrate where my source was bad. If I am citing someone stating facts, what's wrong with that? Nice ad hominem attack to should you have no real argument.
Glenn Chattfield believes in that horrid and abominable doctrine of eternal security which teaches people to live lives of immorality and lawlessness. You too will stand by and say nothing about that abject heresy?!?!?
This is a bald-faced lie. Cite anything I've written which teaches this. You have proven yourself to be nothing but a trouble-making troll.
No, David. Don't use this comment section to prove anything. I'm good with Glenn and don't believe he promotes anything you've described. That means the discussion is over. Take your complaint elsewhere and I would suggest that Glenn open his blog to hashing it out between the two of you. Again, I have enough trouble keeping my topics on point.
Post a Comment