Who is Mike Pence?

[DBowling]

DB, honest question. What appalls you about Trump, and appalls you enough that you couldn't vote for him? Can you be specific as to what you are seeing?

Well, every time I talk about Trump, ACB accuses me of lying... but since you asked.

I watched every Republican debate during the Primaries, and the debates made 3 things very clear.
1. Trump is a bully. Trump always used the excuse that someone said or did something that he didn't like first. For me if you use bullying tactics and intimidation on a regular basis, that is not the sign of a true leader. It is the sign of a self absorbed bully who believes that to get ahead you have to step on and tear others down.
Trump often reveals his true colors when he is in bullying mode.
Trump's behavior towards Megan Kelly was despicable during his tiff with her.
And his attack on the judge in his fraud case was a disgusting example of his disrespect for the judicial system, a willingness to descend into racist rhetoric, and the typical lack of factual accuracy that so often shows up when Trump goes into attack mode.
2. Trump is a liar. Trumps lies are very well documented (just google Trump lies). The frequency of Trump's factually inaccurate statements is ridiculous. I think one analysis showed that during the primaries, Trump's stump speeches averaged a factual inaccuracy every 5 minutes.Truth goes out the window when he's attacking others, and he contradicts himself on a regular basis, often multiple times in the same day.
3. He's woefully ignorant of the issues facing our nation and world today, and he often has no clue what he's talking about. The reason he contradicts himself so often, is he just says things without thinking and he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
Trump is far from being a conservative (in fact he's actually to the left of Hillary on foreign policy and trade) so it is often embarrassing when Trump tries to pretend that he's suddenly morphed into a social conservative.
For example, Trumps total lack of understanding of the pro-life position resulted in him making statements that were nonrepresentative of the pro-life position and was insulting to pro-lifers.
One Trump moment that had me banging my head against the wall was when he expressed his preference for the 'Biblical principle" of "eye for an eye" over loving and forgiving your enemy.
This from the person who feels he has no need for personal forgiveness.
"le sigh"

Those are reasons enough to totally disqualify Trump in my opinion, but he just doesn't stop, the nonsense keeps on coming.

Ok... there's much more, but I think that's enough to have ACB pulling his hair out and calling me a liar again.

Bottom line... it is obvious (at least to me) that Trump is totally lacking the honesty, fundamental morality, temperament, and knowledge of the issues to be allowed anywhere near the White House.

I felt that way during the Republican primaries and like I said earlier... Trump's behavior since the primaries has just reinforced my earlier impressions.

Now I will say this... Trump won the Republican nomination.
Trump is the Republican choice... nothing can or should change that. And for better or worse, the Republicans deserve the consequences of the choice they made.

My .02

[Jac3510]

I'm not interested in accusing you of lying, DB. I would, though, like to further explore some of this if that's okay. I'd rather not try to talk about ten million things at once (or even three), so I'd like to go a little deeper on the first if that's okay--and only the first because it was the first on the list.

So you say he's a bully. What I'd be interested in knowing is what that exactly means, and in particular what it means in terms of running or POTUS and how that is a disqualifying characteristic. Please note that I'm not arguing or even disagreeing. I'm still trying to understand what exactly your concern is so I don't misrepresent. An obvious comparison might be Reagan's insistence that Gorbachev "tear down this wall" and his labeling Russia as "the evil empire." Bush called Iran and affiliated countries the "axis of evil." Politicians are routinely skewered by their opponents as racist, xenophobic, socialist, anti-American, hateful, and so on. My point is that I take it you have something in particular in mind about Trump that is somehow different than what other politicians have done, and I'm curious as to what it is.

Further, you give two specific examples--Trump's tiff with Kelly and his verbal assault on the judge in the Trump U case. Regarding the former, are you talking specifically about the "blood coming out of her wherever" comment? And you take that to be a reference to her period? I'm sure you've heard his explanation. If so, I'd want to know what evidence we would have to say that he did did mean exactly what he is saying he did not mean. This reminds me in some ways of Obama's "you didn't build that" comment that conservatives flipped out about. He said the "that" went back to the infrastructure and not to the business in the immediate context. Now, maybe he was just trying to wriggle out of of a bad spot, but if he told us that's what he meant, that how can we use it against him?

Again, I'm not arguing with you here. I'm trying to understand your position. What exactly was it about the Kelly tiff that you found so "despicable."

You also reference his comments on the judge. Specifically, you said it was "racist." I wonder how. He was certainly commenting on his Mexican heritage, but Mexico isn't a race. And that is not splitting hairs. I think it's an important point. Trump has spoken derogatorily about illegal immigrants, and the vast, vast majority of those are Mexican. But he hasn't spoken derogatorily about immigrants per se, Mexicans in general, nor about Hispanics. On the contrary, his point seemed to me to be that given the political environment, a judge of Mexican heritage might very well have sympathies with arguments that make Trump out to be a racist--and he believes he is not--and therefore that might bias the judge against him in general. Now that doesn't strike ME as a racist comment. I'm sure you've heard the Sotomayor defense, but even outside of that, isn't it just self-evidently true that human beings have biases? Including judges? And in any given case, the judge has to decide if his or her bias is sufficient to require a recusal. If he or she doesn't think so but the attorney does, they can pursue the matter for that very reason. So my point is just that I don't see the racism in that comment. I certainly see a legal strategy at play (and a political one!). Everytime in the case the judge rules in a way Trump's team thinks is inappropriate, he has set the expectation that it's because he is just biased . . . not an incredible claim. And if Trump ultimately LOSES the case, he can claim it was just due to bias at thereby mitigate the political impact. In fact, it could even be the basis of a legal appeal. On the other hand, it puts psychological pressure on the judge to take extra care to make sure his decisions to NOT appear biased. Fair or unfair, that's just a good legal strategy that might result in any given call going Trump's way rather than not.

I know all of that sounds like an argument, and I'll admit in some ways it is. But more than an argument, I'm saying all that because I want to know exactly what it is that you are getting at. You say he's a bully and gave some examples, and I'm just saying that the comment itself is vague and the examples, in and of themselves, don't clearly illustrate what it is you are getting at. So, again, may I ask for clarification on your feelings here?

[RickD]

You're both liars.*




*In before ACB.

[Jac3510]

YOU KNOW WHO IS A LIAR RICKYBOBBY CRUZ TED CRUZ LYIN CRUZ YOUR BOY LYIN TED CRUZ HE'S THE REAL LIAR GOD DIDN'T EVEN SAY HE WAS GOING TO BE POTUS NO MORE LYING

[DBowling]

So you say he's a bully. What I'd be interested in knowing is what that exactly means, and in particular what it means in terms of running or POTUS and how that is a disqualifying characteristic.

A real leader uses positive techniques to persuade others to follow him. A real leader does use force when necessary (you mentioned Reagan and Bush examples), but a true leader realizes that building people up is a much more powerful and effective leadership tool in the long run than bullying and intimidation.
A bully is a person who frequently uses threats, intimidation, and attacks to demoralize and tear tear down others for the purpose of making themselves feel more powerful. The threats and attacks of bullies can sometimes give them momentary 'power' over others but in the long run leads to resistance and resentment.

Further, you give two specific examples--Trump's tiff with Kelly and his verbal assault on the judge in the Trump U case. Regarding the former, are you talking specifically about the "blood coming out of her wherever" comment? And you take that to be a reference to her period?

That's part of it but not the whole thing. The Kelly situation combined Trump's bullying tendency with repeated lies and personal attacks.
To start with...
Kelly was factually correct
Trump was factually wrong
That situation was 'fact checked' by multiple sources.

Even though Trump was factually wrong he continued to personally attack and lie about Kelly for weeks. And all because she told the truth and stood by what she said. Trump didn't like what she said, so in typical bullying fashion, he tried to coerce Fox into removing Kelly as debate moderator, and I was glad to see Fox stand up to Trump's bullying and intimidation. Trump's lack of integrity was on display for all to see when his disparaging attacks on Kelly directly conflicted with compliments he had previously made about Kelly... but that was before she did something that he didn't like. And his attack on Kelly was consistent with other disparaging comments that Trump has made about other women in the past.
This wasn't a one-off, this was consistent with previous behavior.

I'm sure you've heard his explanation. If so, I'd want to know what evidence we would have to say that he did did mean exactly what he is saying he did not mean.

I think Trump's general disregard for the truth has made me disinclined to believe his 'lame excuses'.

Again, I'm not arguing with you here. I'm trying to understand your position. What exactly was it about the Kelly tiff that you found so "despicable."

Did that help?

You also reference his comments on the judge. Specifically, you said it was "racist." I wonder how. He was certainly commenting on his Mexican heritage, but Mexico isn't a race. And that is not splitting hairs. I think it's an important point.

The comment was definitely racist. Regardless of political ideology (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents largely agree on this) most people recognize that Trump's attack on the Judge in his fraud case was racist. Now making a racist statement does not necessarily mean that a person is a racist, but I don't see how anyone can claim that Trump's attack on the Judge was not a racist attack.
First, his attack on the Judge was another Trump lie. The Judge is not a 'Mexican'. The judge was born in the good ol' USA and is just as much an American as Trump is. Trump made the racist association when he claimed that an American Judge should recuse himself because of the Mexican heritage of his family. Trump's fundamental dishonesty was again on display when he was personally attacking and lying about the Judge in public... yet his lawyers had made no legal move against the Judge in court. This was all about public defamation of a Judge who was prevented by law from responding to Trump's lies. Trump and his lawyers knew that trying to recuse a Judge based on his family's heritage had absolutely no basis in the law, but that didn't keep Trump from saying it in public. This was another case of more lies and bullying, plain and simple.

My .02

[Jac3510]

1. Sure, leaders use positive techniques, but I think you are white washing politics. But aside from just arguing with you, my problem is that it's still a vague argument. It's one of those platitude's that we say. If somebody already sees Trump as a bully, then they'll say YAHHHHHH!!! But outside of that, I don't see the assertion as having any real meaning. But more on that below.

2. Same thing is true with the frequency of threats stuff. Something you'll agree with if you already believe the existing narrative. Again, that's standard issue politics as far as I can tell.

3. RE Kelly, I was also glad that Fox didn't back down. And if you notice, Trump paid a price. He probably lost Iowa over it! But I don't think your point about his attacking women is on point. Trump offends everybody. Now, you can say that's the the thing you don't like, and that's fine. But to try to make it a women thing strikes me as disingenuous. He never attacked Kelly for being a woman, and your refusal to believe his explanation of the blood comment is just, by your own admission, an uncharitable attitude. Again, if you already believe the narrative that he's a sexist, then you're inclined to interpret his comments in a way he says he didn't mean them. But if he is not, in fact, a sexist, then his explanation makes sense. So the question is whether or not he really is a sexist, and you've not offered any evidence that he has. You say he's offended a lot of women, but I don't know any disparaging remarks he has made about women on account of their gender. He's disparaged individual women, sure. He's made insults that are uniquely related to their womanhood--so he calls some women ugly, which is in direct relation to the idea that it is desirable for a woman to be beautiful. But are we so idiotically politically correct that we now say it is sexist to say that it is desirable for a woman to be beautiful? I hope not.

4. And regarding your judge argument, I think you're just flat wrong. Trump, as far as I know, didn't attack the judge for being MEXICAN. You're misrepresenting his remarks, and for someone attacking Trump's honesty, I think it's going to be doubly important for you to be honest here. Trump's actual words were, "this judge is of Mexican heritage." Now, again, that's not saying he is Mexican, and even if it were, it is, by definition, not a racist statement because Mexican's aren't a race. If you are going to base your opinion, then, on Trump as being a racist and define racism as making a negative comment about a nationality and not a race, then I suppose I have the answer to my question. Your problems with Trump, on that interpretation, would just be irrational, uncharitable, and dishonest, because you'd be attributing to him positions he doesn't hold. You wouldn't want people to do that to you.

Now, I really don't want to do that to you, so I'm going to continue asking for clarification. I don't think you meant exactly what your words say here. I think we are miscommunicating somewhere.

The bottom line is that it's clear to me that you agree with the general narrative that Trump is a racist bully. The difficulty I'm having is finding the evidence for that claim. You've only provided vague statements and two concrete examples--but the two examples both presume the narrative is true. So that makes your position circular. And that's where I think I'm misunderstanding you somewhere. What evidence do you have that the narrative is true? What evidence do you have that Trump is a racist or that his threats of various kinds are any different from what other politicians do that you've already acknowledged is appropriate? Because I'm worried that you've just gotten caught up in confirmation bias.

[DBowling]

4. And regarding your judge argument, I think you're just flat wrong. Trump, as far as I know, didn't attack the judge for being MEXICAN. You're misrepresenting his remarks,

Hmmmmm.... I need to take another look and see if I inaccurately represented Trump there...

[DBowling]

3. RE Kelly, I was also glad that Fox didn't back down. And if you notice, Trump paid a price. He probably lost Iowa over it! But I don't think your point about his attacking women is on point. Trump offends everybody. Now, you can say that's the the thing you don't like, and that's fine. But to try to make it a women thing strikes me as disingenuous. He never attacked Kelly for being a woman, and your refusal to believe his explanation of the blood comment is just, by your own admission, an uncharitable attitude. Again, if you already believe the narrative that he's a sexist, then you're inclined to interpret his comments in a way he says he didn't mean them.

I don't think I accused Trump of being a sexist.

I think it is an undisputed fact that Trump has made sexist statements about women in the past. And my point was that some of Trump's statements about Kelly are consistent with sexist statements that he has made about other women in the past.
But similar to the racist issue... just because someone makes a sexist statement that does not necessarily mean they are by definition sexist.

For me, this is not primarily a 'woman thing'. The thing that bothers me is Trump's repeated use of lies and bullying against both men and women.
And I don't think that is 'uncharitable' to be suspicious of the veracity of claims from people who have repeatedly demonstrated "a tenuous relationship with the truth"

4. And regarding your judge argument, I think you're just flat wrong. Trump, as far as I know, didn't attack the judge for being MEXICAN. You're misrepresenting his remarks, and for someone attacking Trump's honesty, I think it's going to be doubly important for you to be honest here. Trump's actual words were, "this judge is of Mexican heritage." Now, again, that's not saying he is Mexican,

I thought I was right on this one, but I needed to check and make sure... He said both in his interview with Tapper so I wasn't misrepresenting what Trump said.

TAPPER: Is it not -- When Hillary Clinton says this is a racist attack, you reject that, if you are saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?

TRUMP: No. I don't think so at all. He's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that.

TAPPER: But you’re say he can't do his job because of that.

TRUMP: Look, he's proud of his heritage. I'm building a wall. Now, I think I'm going to do very well --

TAPPER: He's a legal citizen.

(Crosstalk)

TRUMP: I'm going to do very well with Hispanics because I'm going to bring back jobs and they're going to get jobs right now. They’re going to get jobs. I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics, but we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings -- rulings that people can't even believe. This case should have ended years ago on summary judgement. The best lawyers -- I have spoken to so many lawyers, they said this is not a case. This is a case that should have ended. This judge is giving us unfair rulings. Now, I say why? Well, I'm building a wall, ok? And it's a wall between Mexico, not another country and --

TAPPER: But he's not from Mexico, he's from Indiana.

TRUMP: Mexican heritage. And he's very proud of it.

The bottom line is that it's clear to me that you agree with the general narrative that Trump is a racist bully.

Actually the narrative that I agree with is that Trump is a lying bully.

He occasionally makes sexist and racist statements, but my primary concerns with Trump are his dishonesty, his bullying, and his ignorance on key issues.

My .02

[Jac3510]

Well thank you for your clarification. I believe you are being uncharitable and misrepresenting Trump. I think you have bought into a false narrative and that you are repeating claims without offering evidence, and I think that is counter to your faith and to good morals. But that is nothing more than my opinion and my assessment, and as I said, I've no interest in calling you a liar or trying to change your mind. I wanted to know why you find Trump so appalling, and you've answered my question. You believe he's a lying bully who makes sexist and racist remarks. My opinion of that is that you've been hoodwinked by a media narrative and are showing a degree of gullibility I find regrettable and that is designed directly to benefit Hillary Clinton. I hope that sufficient people have not bought into the lie that you have that Clinton becomes POTUS--the Clinton who obviously is sexist (saying that being a woman is a qualifier for the job presupposes that the female experience is preferable to the male experience) and a liar (hello, FBI report), if not a felon (though without charge), a bully (shoving anti-family beliefs down people's throats and fighting against religious liberties), and who supports putting liberal justices on the SCOTUS, which, of course, continues to directly result in the deaths of millions of unborn children, and all this to speak nothing of her general corruption and overall failed worldview with respect to globalization . . . it's a shame to me that you've been deceived, but confirmation bias is a powerful thing. Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it. And you, my friend, are Exhibit A in that regard.

In all sincerity, I do appreciate your candor in answering my questions.

[DBowling]

Well thank you for your clarification.

No problem

And believe it or not... there was one sentence in your post that I fully agree with

but confirmation bias is a powerful thing. Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it.

And that is why we have Trump and Clinton as our presidential candidates.

In all sincerity, I do appreciate your candor in answering my questions.

Have a good one

[edwardmurphy]

Trump lies constantly, and even when he's not lying he's frequently factually incorrect. DBowling covered that pretty well, so I'm not going to rehash it all. For me there were 2 specific lies that I found alarming, disgusting, and dangerous.

1) Muslims in New Jersey cheered as the Twin Towers went down. That's a blatant lie, and it's aimed at defaming American citizens who happen to be Muslim. That's way over the line.

2) People asked for a moment of silence for the Dallas shooter. Again, there's no evidence whatsoever that that happened. Trump made it up in order to fan the flames of white outrage following the shootings. It's blatant race-baiting.

Also, regarding Trump's attacks on the Judge, yes, they were racist. No, Mexican isn't a race, but Hispanic is, and the attack on the Judge was part of Trump's overall strategy of using fear and resentment of brown people to pump up his white base. That's Conservative Populism 101.

[Jac3510]

*shrug*

Your comments on these matters are dismissable as always. You're a leftist, a partisan, and dishonest about it in your own right. Pearls and swine kind of thing. I was interested in DB's take. Not yours. Not that you aren't free to share your opinion, and you did and I expect you'll continue to. But as this is a public board and your response here seems generally if not specifically related to my question to DB, I'm just making it clear that I wasn't looking for the opinions of people who are opposed to Trump generally but rather people who are otherwise rational on these matters. Perhaps others, edward, will find your thoughts interesting our enlightening, but you really could save some keystrokes and just say, "Because he's not running as a Democrat."

[edwardmurphy]

How about instead of the usual contemptuous dismissal you tell me how I'm wrong...? Which of those two statements wasn't a lie? If the purpose of those lies wasn't race-baiting then what was it? Are you now denying that Trump's angle is identity politics? If calling Trump's comments about the judge racist is just a Democratic smear then why did conservative Republicans say the same thing? There are people here who I'd expect to respond to my comments with empty ad hominem BS, but I think you can do better.

Also, I'm not a leftist. Progressive is to leftist and YEC is to creatard. You know that and that's why you're doing it. I'm doing my best to be civil. You might consider meeting me half way.

[Jac3510]

I am being civil--certainly at least as civil as you. And I certainly have no doubt the above is your best attempt at civility. So I'll decline your offer to engage the substance (using the term loosely) of your argument. Take that as me being scared or unable to respond to your profound, incisive thoughts if you like. Your history on these matters, including your last two posts in this brief exchange, give me no reason to think my efforts would be anything other than a waste of time, and time is a rather precious commodity. Perhaps, then, we can engage on other issues, but these offerings don't pass muster for me to try to offer any serious engagement.

[edwardmurphy]

I'll take it as you being deliberately dismissive and sanctimonious in order to irritate me. Congratulations, you're a troll.