Why Trump is the worst President in modern history

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Gotta wonder with a hot wife like Melania what Trump is doing tweeting at all hours of the night.

 

They don't live together, and many speculate their marriage was one of convenience. Something to do with a greencard or something...

[CaliCat 3,957]

6 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

this might have something to do with endurance?

 

 

I don't think he can hold his own, among leaders. 

 

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Some people want the country to be back even further than that...

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

I don't think he can hold his own, among leaders. 

 

very low energy. sad.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

very low energy. sad.

The Donald needs some

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The Donald needs some

 

now there's sum religious science u can trust. it's what plants crave. and what's more science that plants? what's more religious than craves? nothing. that's what.

[yuna628 9,671]

Sean sounds audibly despondent today and just fled the room after 4 minutes off camera.  He needs serious help..

[Jacque67 7,328]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Sean sounds audibly despondent today and just fled the room after 4 minutes off camera.  He needs serious help..

Wow, poor Spicey!!!

WH@press secretary says all questions on Russia investigation will now be referred to @POTUS's private attorney.

storm clouds approaching!!!

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, Jacque67 said:

Wow, poor Spicey!!!

WH@press secretary says all questions on Russia investigation will now be referred to @POTUS's private attorney.

storm clouds approaching!!!

 

 

The future seems positively covfefian!

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Sean sounds audibly despondent today and just fled the room after 4 minutes off camera.  He needs serious help..

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer drew widespread laughter from reporters when he insisted that President Donald Trump’s infamous “covfefe” tweet was not a misspelling.After one reporter asked Spicer if “people should be concerned that the president posted somewhat of an incoherent tweet last night,” Spicer simply replied, “No.”

The reporter then asked Spicer why the misspelled tweet stayed up for so long.

“The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” Spicer replied, which elicited laughter throughout the room.

Reporters then tried to ask Spicer what “covfefe” actually means, but he quickly moved on to another question.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/reporters-burst-into-laughter-as-sean-spicer-insists-trump-didnt-misspell-covfefe-tweet/

 

I want to be sympathetic...but he just told us we were stupid because we don't know what covfefe means

[Jacque67 7,328]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

 

The future seems positively covfefian!

Oh covfefey!

[Jacque67 7,328]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer drew widespread laughter from reporters when he insisted that President Donald Trump’s infamous “covfefe” tweet was not a misspelling.After one reporter asked Spicer if “people should be concerned that the president posted somewhat of an incoherent tweet last night,” Spicer simply replied, “No.”

The reporter then asked Spicer why the misspelled tweet stayed up for so long.

“The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” Spicer replied, which elicited laughter throughout the room.

Reporters then tried to ask Spicer what “covfefe” actually means, but he quickly moved on to another question.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/reporters-burst-into-laughter-as-sean-spicer-insists-trump-didnt-misspell-covfefe-tweet/

 

I want to be sympathetic...but he just told us we were stupid because we don't know what covfefe means

Sounds like an elitist to me!!! Covfefeok!

[Bugs 455]

8 hours ago, IAMX said:

"humane methods of population control"

 

If I get out my leftist to English dictionary, I'm presuming this means enforcing immigration laws (deporting law breaking illegals) and exercising his constitutional authority to limit immigration? Ugh, not breaking laws himself, how inhumane.

 

"health care as if it were a perk"

 

Can you point in the Constitution where this is a right? If not.. it certainly is a perk. 

 

"rolling back protections established in internet privacy"

 

Really now..

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/29/google-facebook-are-super-upset-they-may-no-longer-be-able-to-sell-your-internet-data-without-permission/

 

I'm sure the tech giants are just really worried about protecting our privacy thus oppose bills that give the consumer more control over their privacy. Terrible.

 

"giving key positions to..."

 

I wasn't aware there was criteria for giving these positions to those who are completely unknown? If this was the case, why didn't Obama do this? 

 

"pre-recession banking practices"

 

In what way? Using government to guarantee incredibly stupid and risky subprime loans for people who didn't deserve it due to social justice policies? What a terrible President.

 

"student loan crisis"

 

By not forgiving the debt of people who take out student loans and refuse to pay them? What a terrible crisis.

 

"completely turning the Supreme Court into a partisan entity"

 

By nominating someone that was previously, universally approved (by voice vote no less) to a federal circuit court in bi-partisan fashion? That's so terribly partisan of him. 

 

Just all bad arguments.

 

"Bad arguments", or just something you disagree with?  

 

If you want to talk about using "bad arguments", I suggest you re-read and examine what you just posted.

 

Still not seeing it?  Then let me assist.

 

On population control:

 

In my vouch for the need for population control, I was not referring AT ALL to illegal immigration or even necessarily anything to do with the United States alone (although the US certainly can do its part).  The world population has grown to 7.5 billion, having added .7 billion in the last 8 years alone.  The US population has grown to 325 million, having added 17 million in the last 8 years alone. This is a rate that has alarmed many experts, calling it grossly unsustainable, and predicting increasingly catastrophic food shortages in the coming years, which affects EVERYONE, whether or not they want to admit it, either directly or indirectly, short term or long term, worldwide and domestically.  The cause of this population growth has been the birth rate.  In the US, 4 million babies are added each year, resulting in a net population increase of 2 million each year.  Family planning education and easy access to birth control are has been proven to be the most effective way to combat this alarming growth, both of which Republicans (and Trump) are against for religious reasons.  Furthermore, Trump has, by executive order eliminated funding worldwide for this much needed education and easy access to birth control in third world countries, simply because some of these organizations that help in this regard include choice among the options. 

 

But your argument?  Blame the illegals.  For your information, we have actually seen a DECREASE in the number of illegal immigrants living in the US, from 12.2 million 8 years ago to 11.5 million today.  But of course, you choose to latch SOLELY on to this irrelevant argument and scapegoat the illegals for this, as done with a lot of problems the Trump campaign seemed to do.

 

On health care:

 

I believe health care is something we all NEED, whether we want to need it or not, just like we need air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and this will never change.  So to say any of these things should be a perk and not a right is to say that we don't have a right to be alive.  Yet, Republicans want to pass legislation that makes health care unaffordable for 23 million Americans.  Health care - again something we all need to survive - should not be something only the wealthy can afford, and especially should not be something that is completely controlled by for-profit companies.  If it has turned into that, then something is seriously wrong with the system.  What if food suddenly became unaffordable for 23 million Americans?  And, like population control above, this is a public health issue that affects ALL of us, including financially, both short term (in terms of higher premiums) and long term.  It is actually cheaper, let alone better for the public good, if we all pay into a single payer system than what we (or our employers) currently pay out of pocket for premiums, deductibles, and copays.  

 

Your argument?  You argue that health care is considered a perk and use this to argue that it shouldn't be otherwise.  This too, is a fallacious argument that only defines what it currently is and does not actually address why it should be or changed to one or the other, like mine actually does.  Your argument would have been better if you actually explained why it should be a perk, and not that is simply is.

On rolling back internet privacy protections:

 

Of course I was referring to the spring enactment that rolled back a host of internet privacy protections originally enacted under Obama.  

 

Your argument?  You completely ignore this enactment and choose to throw at me a PROPOSED future legislation meant to rescind one aspect of this rollback and use this to counter my entire gripe.  For the record, I think that proposal is great, and I will support it, but then why did they roll it back in the first place?  It sounds to me like a public outcry is creating second thoughts.  And, speaking of which, by the way, from the looks of what you used here for your argument, my gripe is turning into your gripe as well.

 

On giving key cabinet positions to lobbyists, CEOs, and billionaires:

 

Wasn't Trump supposed to drain the swamp?  Perhaps I'm having trouble, but I fail to see any drainage here with the hire of an ex-EXXON CEO as the head of foriegn affairs, and a hire of a millionaire lobbyist with zero experience in the education field who paid millions to the campaigns of Republicans as the head of public education, as two examples that come immediately to mind, among many.  Sounds like things are more oligarchical than ever to me, if you ask me, with none other than the billionaire kid at the top.  

 

And, yet, your wonderful argument is...Obama did it.  Well alrighty then, it must be okay.  In reality, of course that does nothing but ADD to my disgust for how we are run by an oligarchy, with campaign bribes completely out of control.  Or, rather, in complete control...of our country.

 

On pre-recession banking practices:

 

You remember the Great Recession right?  Dodd-Frank reform did many things to help prevent such a catastrophic effect on our economy from re-occurring, as well as protections for consumers.  Notable among them are overseeing Wall Street to identify risks that would affect the entire financial industry, preventing banks from gambling with depositors' money, regulating risky derivatives, bringing hedge funds into light to be better priced, regulating credit agencies, regulating credit card, loan, and mortgage fees, and requiring education to borrowers on risk factors in mortgages.

 

Your argument?  Let's do away with all these things simply because they...gasp...help some who are needy find a footing in purchasing a home!  Look, even if I were against this aspect, let's not just hose down the entire thing and all the good it provides just because we don't want to spend a dime to save someone, even if it means bringing down the entire ship with us.  

 

On the student loan crisis:

 

Students are 1.3 trillion dollars in debt, averaging $29,400 per student in debt, which, for many, takes 10-20 years to pay off on a 6-8 percent interest rate.  This is a crisis that is crippling our youth in a time when college is almost mandatory to better ensure a career path that one can make a living on.  Obama simply wanted to put in measures that make it easier for those who can't pay it off.

 

Your argument?  They shouldn't have taken the loans in the first place.  For your information, however, this is the ONLY option for millions of Americans who want to go to college.  Not everyone has rich parents.  So, therefore, let me guess, your argument is that they shouldn't go to college?  Great, so now your solution is that millions of Americans should be satisfied with living below the poverty level and shouldn't take the initiative rise out of such poverty by getting an education?  I guess so, since, you've established already that you don't want any of your money helping others out.

 

By the way, speaking of which, we DO live in a society.  And when we live in a society, we ARE going to have to help each other out a bit.  It's just the way society is.  It benefits all of us, believe it or not.  So, unless you want to build all your own roads, teach your own children, pay for your entire retirement alone, and pay for hospital care directly out of pocket, then you're going to have to accept that.  Otherwise, by all means, be a salty miser, move and don't live in society and do those things while the rest of us live cheaper and happier.

 

On the Supreme Court:

 

First of all, don't literally change my words to fit your argument.  When I said "permanently", I meant "permanently".  Not "completely", which is what you substituted the word for when quoting me.  They do have different meanings.  Get away from your so-called liberal to English dictionary and read an actual dictionary.

 

And, by stating that they "permanently changing the Supreme Court to a partisan entity", I wasn't even referring to Gorsuch at all, your apparent contention.  I was referring to the removal, by the GOP at Trump's encouragement, of the filibuster that usually ensured all nominees must require bi-partisan agreement for approval.  Now that the filibuster has been removed, this bi-partisanship is no longer needed, ensuring that a Senate with a certain constitutionally interpretive agenda can successfully nominate someone that specifically fits that agenda regardless of the opposition.  This has, in essence, turned the Supreme Court, something that I was under the impression was always supposed to be above and impartial to political influence, into a future body that is much less guaranteed not to split into partisan-sided opinion.

 

Also where is your argument against my contention of Trump's GOP being anti-science?  I would think this would be most relevant, not only due to today's news of our climate-denier-in-chief pulling out of the Paris accord, but it was the first thing I mentioned.  Which, by the way, I mentioned, because it is the most urgent and pressing issue facing all of us as a human race on this planet.

 

Never mind, your arguments are horrible anyways, so maybe it's best I not hear it and not waste any of my time further.

 

Bad arguments indeed.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Leon & Mylen

[OriZ 3,157]

Funniest thing I read all day...Trump responsible for the student loan crisis 

[CaliCat 3,957]

10 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

"Bad arguments", or just something you disagree with?  

 

If you want to talk about using "bad arguments", I suggest you re-read and examine what you just posted.

 

Still not seeing it?  Then let me assist.

 

On population control:

 

In my vouch for the need for population control, I was not referring AT ALL to illegal immigration or even necessarily anything to do with the United States alone (although the US certainly can do its part).  The world population has grown to 7.5 billion, having added .7 billion in the last 8 years alone.  The US population has grown to 325 million, having added 17 million in the last 8 years alone. This is a rate that has alarmed many experts, calling it grossly unsustainable, and predicting increasingly catastrophic food shortages in the coming years, which affects EVERYONE, whether or not they want to admit it, either directly or indirectly, short term or long term, worldwide and domestically.  The cause of this population growth has been the birth rate.  In the US, 4 million babies are added each year, resulting in a net population increase of 2 million each year.  Family planning education and easy access to birth control are has been proven to be the most effective way to combat this alarming growth, both of which Republicans (and Trump) are against for religious reasons.  Furthermore, Trump has, by executive order eliminated funding worldwide for this much needed education and easy access to birth control in third world countries, simply because some of these organizations that help in this regard include choice among the options. 

 

But your argument?  Blame the illegals.  For your information, we have actually seen a DECREASE in the number of illegal immigrants living in the US, from 12.2 million 8 years ago to 11.5 million today.  But of course, you choose to latch SOLELY on to this irrelevant argument and scapegoat the illegals for this, as done with a lot of problems the Trump campaign seemed to do.

 

On health care:

 

I believe health care is something we all NEED, whether we want to need it or not, just like we need air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and this will never change.  So to say any of these things should be a perk and not a right is to say that we don't have a right to be alive.  Yet, Republicans want to pass legislation that makes health care unaffordable for 23 million Americans.  Health care - again something we all need to survive - should not be something only the wealthy can afford, and especially should not be something that is completely controlled by for-profit companies.  If it has turned into that, then something is seriously wrong with the system.  What if food suddenly became unaffordable for 23 million Americans?  And, like population control above, this is a public health issue that affects ALL of us, including financially, both short term (in terms of higher premiums) and long term.  It is actually cheaper, let alone better for the public good, if we all pay into a single payer system than what we (or our employers) currently pay out of pocket for premiums, deductibles, and copays.  

 

Your argument?  You argue that health care is considered a perk and use this to argue that it shouldn't be otherwise.  This too, is a fallacious argument that only defines what it currently is and does not actually address why it should be or changed to one or the other, like mine actually does.  Your argument would have been better if you actually explained why it should be a perk, and not that is simply is.

On rolling back internet privacy protections:

 

Of course I was referring to the spring enactment that rolled back a host of internet privacy protections originally enacted under Obama.  

 

Your argument?  You completely ignore this enactment and choose to throw at me a PROPOSED future legislation meant to rescind one aspect of this rollback and use this to counter my entire gripe.  For the record, I think that proposal is great, and I will support it, but then why did they roll it back in the first place?  It sounds to me like a public outcry is creating second thoughts.  And, speaking of which, by the way, from the looks of what you used here for your argument, my gripe is turning into your gripe as well.

 

On giving key cabinet positions to lobbyists, CEOs, and billionaires:

 

Wasn't Trump supposed to drain the swamp?  Perhaps I'm having trouble, but I fail to see any drainage here with the hire of an ex-EXXON CEO as the head of foriegn affairs, and a hire of a millionaire lobbyist with zero experience in the education field who paid millions to the campaigns of Republicans as the head of public education, as two examples that come immediately to mind, among many.  Sounds like things are more oligarchical than ever to me, if you ask me, with none other than the billionaire kid at the top.  

 

And, yet, your wonderful argument is...Obama did it.  Well alrighty then, it must be okay.  In reality, of course that does nothing but ADD to my disgust for how we are run by an oligarchy, with campaign bribes completely out of control.  Or, rather, in complete control...of our country.

 

On pre-recession banking practices:

 

You remember the Great Recession right?  Dodd-Frank reform did many things to help prevent such a catastrophic effect on our economy from re-occurring, as well as protections for consumers.  Notable among them are overseeing Wall Street to identify risks that would affect the entire financial industry, preventing banks from gambling with depositors' money, regulating risky derivatives, bringing hedge funds into light to be better priced, regulating credit agencies, regulating credit card, loan, and mortgage fees, and requiring education to borrowers on risk factors in mortgages.

 

Your argument?  Let's do away with all these things simply because they...gasp...help some who are needy find a footing in purchasing a home!  Look, even if I were against this aspect, let's not just hose down the entire thing and all the good it provides just because we don't want to spend a dime to save someone, even if it means bringing down the entire ship with us.  

 

On the student loan crisis:

 

Students are 1.3 trillion dollars in debt, averaging $29,400 per student in debt, which, for many, takes 10-20 years to pay off on a 6-8 percent interest rate.  This is a crisis that is crippling our youth in a time when college is almost mandatory to better ensure a career path that one can make a living on.  Obama simply wanted to put in measures that make it easier for those who can't pay it off.

 

Your argument?  They shouldn't have taken the loans in the first place.  For your information, however, this is the ONLY option for millions of Americans who want to go to college.  Not everyone has rich parents.  So, therefore, let me guess, your argument is that they shouldn't go to college?  Great, so now your solution is that millions of Americans should be satisfied with living below the poverty level and shouldn't take the initiative rise out of such poverty by getting an education?  I guess so, since, you've established already that you don't want any of your money helping others out.

 

By the way, speaking of which, we DO live in a society.  And when we live in a society, we ARE going to have to help each other out a bit.  It's just the way society is.  It benefits all of us, believe it or not.  So, unless you want to build all your own roads, teach your own children, pay for your entire retirement alone, and pay for hospital care directly out of pocket, then you're going to have to accept that.  Otherwise, by all means, be a salty miser, move and don't live in society and do those things while the rest of us live cheaper and happier.

 

On the Supreme Court:

 

First of all, don't literally change my words to fit your argument.  When I said "permanently", I meant "permanently".  Not "completely", which is what you substituted the word for when quoting me.  They do have different meanings.  Get away from your so-called liberal to English dictionary and read an actual dictionary.

 

And, by stating that they "permanently changing the Supreme Court to a partisan entity", I wasn't even referring to Gorsuch at all, your apparent contention.  I was referring to the removal, by the GOP at Trump's encouragement, of the filibuster that usually ensured all nominees must require bi-partisan agreement for approval.  Now that the filibuster has been removed, this bi-partisanship is no longer needed, ensuring that a Senate with a certain constitutionally interpretive agenda can successfully nominate someone that specifically fits that agenda regardless of the opposition.  This has, in essence, turned the Supreme Court, something that I was under the impression was always supposed to be above and impartial to political influence, into a future body that is much less guaranteed not to split into partisan-sided opinion.

 

Also where is your argument against my contention of Trump's GOP being anti-science?  I would think this would be most relevant, not only due to today's news of our climate-denier-in-chief pulling out of the Paris accord, but it was the first thing I mentioned.  Which, by the way, I mentioned, because it is the most urgent and pressing issue facing all of us as a human race on this planet.

 

Never mind, your arguments are horrible anyways, so maybe it's best I not hear it and not waste any of my time further.

 

Bad arguments indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

They're spiking the whiskey in far away lands. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by CaliCat