What President Trump Have To Hide?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
At least with her there was ACTUAL evidence in her case. There is a major difference. Apples and Oranges.
Assume Person X wants to comment on what he or she believes is the potential criminality of a president's conduct. Your argument SEEMS to exempt Person X from the "innocent until proven guilty" limitation on such comments if "ACTUAL evidence" exists to support them. Who decides whether "ACTUAL evidence" exists to support Person X's view of the president's conduct? Person X, or someone listening/reading Person X's comments?
In our present exchange, YOU seem to be the one deciding whether there was "ACTUAL evidence" to support GOP conventioneers' cries of "Lock her up!" AND whether there is "ACTUAL evidence" to support my comments about the conduct of Trump campaign members. That is, this is another example of "apples and oranges" (hello, old friend!) because YOU say it is; I don't seem to play any role in either determination.
Are you saying that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to my comments about the Trump campaign' ties to Russia unless YOU decide there is "ACTUAL evidence" to allow such comments? What if I decide there IS "ACTUAL evidence" to support my comments? May I make them then?
And what if I decide there is NO "ACTUAL evidence" to support a "Lock her up!" shout from Trump campaign rally crowds? Do those crowds then have to stop shouting it?
Bottom line: I'm not at all clear as to when the "innocent until proven guilty" aphorism that you raised in your previous post applies. Does it apply if I believe there is "ACTUAL evidence" to support my views, or only when YOU decide there is "ACTUAL evidence" to support my views?
Let me be clear, I believe Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. What I am saying is you are crying that President Trump is guilty without any hardcore evidence to even suggest a crime was committed. Clinton had loads of evidence and Comey even laid out that evidence.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Let me be clear, I believe Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. What I am saying is you are crying that President Trump is guilty without any hardcore evidence to even suggest a crime was committed. Clinton had loads of evidence and Comey even laid out that evidence.In other words...
- In your view, there was "loads of evidence" against Hillary Clinton that justified the conventioneers' shouts of "Lock her up!" So be it.
- I believe there is sufficient evidence - I don't know what "loads" look like - to justify my comments about the Trump campaign. So be it.
- Our respective views of Clinton and Trump notwithstanding, we each believe both people are "innocent until proven guilty," the only possible difference between our views being that I specified the aphorism's judicial system context, and you did not. So be it.
All in all, we're just about where we were before you asked whether I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I'm not convinced that your question prompted a productive exchange.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Let me be clear, I believe Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. What I am saying is you are crying that President Trump is guilty without any hardcore evidence to even suggest a crime was committed. Clinton had loads of evidence and Comey even laid out that evidence.In other words...
- In your view, there was "loads of evidence" against Hillary Clinton that justified the conventioneers' shouts of "Lock her up!" So be it.
I didn't say it was justified, I said it is more understandable.
- I believe there is sufficient evidence - I don't know what "loads" look like - to justify my comments about the Trump campaign. So be it.
No law enforcement agency has actually laid out evidence against Trump, they did with Clinton.
- Our respective views of Clinton and Trump notwithstanding, we each believe both people are "innocent until proven guilty," the only possible difference between our views being that I specified the aphorism's judicial system context, and you did not. So be it.
All in all, we're just about where we were before you asked whether I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I'm not convinced that your question prompted a productive exchange.
I just think it is pretty ridiculous to assume Trump is guilty with no evidence.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
- In your view, there was "loads of evidence" against Hillary Clinton that justified the conventioneers' shouts of "Lock her up!" So be it.
I didn't say it was justified, I said it is more understandable.
I confess my confusion. The conventioneers' "Lock her up!" chant was "more understandable," but NOT "justified"? Did they have the right to chant "Lock her up!"? Do Trump critics have the right to believe he and/or his campaign broke the law?
- I believe there is sufficient evidence - I don't know what "loads" look like - to justify my comments about the Trump campaign. So be it.
No law enforcement agency has actually laid out evidence against Trump, they did with Clinton.
AND that same law enforcement agency declared that "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted Clinton based on the "evidence" it found.
Mueller's team has not laid out much of its evidence of wrongdoing because its investigation is ongoing. To-date, information in the indictments, guilty pleas, and other court filings (see below) constitutes the only official declaration of the investigation's findings.
All in all, we're just about where we were before you asked whether I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I'm not convinced that your question prompted a productive exchange.
I just think it is pretty ridiculous to assume Trump is guilty with no evidence.
You have every right to that opinion.
As for your claim that there is "no evidence," I hope you will answer the following questions directly:
As I have shown in previous posts, from information that's on the public record, we know 20+ people connected with the Trump campaign had or were aware of more than 70 contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign, the most recently disclosed of which being deputy campaign manager Rick Gates's September and October 2016 communications with a person Gates at the time knew to have ties to the GRU, Russia's foreign military intelligence agency.
In your view/surmise/speculation, what were all those Trump campaign contacts with Russians about? Was it just coincidence that Trump campaign people had so many contacts with Russians? Out of all the countries on earth, why Russia? Does that not even raise your curiosity?
Do you view it as pure coincidence that it was people from Russia - out of all the countries on earth - that so many Trump campaign people had contacts with? Can you name a country with whom Clinton campaign people had a comparable number of contacts?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
- In your view, there was "loads of evidence" against Hillary Clinton that justified the conventioneers' shouts of "Lock her up!" So be it.
I didn't say it was justified, I said it is more understandable.
I confess my confusion. The conventioneers' "Lock her up!" chant was "more understandable," but NOT "justified"? Did they have the right to chant "Lock her up!"? Do Trump critics have the right to believe he and/or his campaign broke the law?
Of course they have the right to, that's the 1st Amendment.
- I believe there is sufficient evidence - I don't know what "loads" look like - to justify my comments about the Trump campaign. So be it.
No law enforcement agency has actually laid out evidence against Trump, they did with Clinton.
AND that same law enforcement agency declared that "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted Clinton based on the "evidence" it found.
Sort of. Comey, who we now know wrote her exoneration well in advance, proclaimed this. It was a sham investigation which is why they are seeking to re-open it and do it properly. Comey flat out admitted that Clinton broke the law.
Mueller's team has not laid out much of its evidence of wrongdoing because its investigation is ongoing. To-date, information in the indictments, guilty pleas, and other court filings (see below) constitutes the only official declaration of the investigation's findings.
Sure, so I would suggest you hold your rabidly eager judgement until there actually is evidence.
All in all, we're just about where we were before you asked whether I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I'm not convinced that your question prompted a productive exchange.
I just think it is pretty ridiculous to assume Trump is guilty with no evidence.
You have every right to that opinion.
As for your claim that there is "no evidence," I hope you will answer the following questions directly:
As I have shown in previous posts, from information that's on the public record, we know 20+ people connected with the Trump campaign had or were aware of more than 70 contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign, the most recently disclosed of which being deputy campaign manager Rick Gates's September and October 2016 communications with a person Gates at the time knew to have ties to the GRU, Russia's foreign military intelligence agency.
In your view/surmise/speculation, what were all those Trump campaign contacts with Russians about? Was it just coincidence that Trump campaign people had so many contacts with Russians? Out of all the countries on earth, why Russia? Does that not even raise your curiosity?
Do you view it as pure coincidence that it was people from Russia - out of all the countries on earth - that so many Trump campaign people had contacts with? Can you name a country with whom Clinton campaign people had a comparable number of contacts?
I view it as a wild imagination. Have you ever talked to a Russian Bill? I have, I guess I must be a criminal too.
-
The burden of proof
n. Law
The duty of presenting a certain amount of evidence in order to meet the legal requirements for establishing the entitlement of the party in a case to the outcome sought.Burden of proof
n
(Law) law the obligation, in criminal cases resting initially on the prosecution, to provide evidence that will convince the court or jury of the truth of one's contentionClear and convincing evidence
n. evidence that proves a matter by the "preponderance of evidence" required in civil cases and beyond the "reasonable doubt" needed to convict in a criminal case.
"Preponderance of evidence" Meaning: n. 1. superiority in power or influence 2. a superiority in numbers or amount 3. exceeding in heaviness; having greater weight.Here is some information to bring clarity to the conversation. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Of course they have the right to, that's the 1st Amendment.
Sure, so I would suggest you hold your rabidly eager judgement until there actually is evidence.So I have a first amendment right to believe and declare that there is evidence the Trump campaign broke the law, but should not believe or declare that the Trump campaign broke the law until YOU decide "there actually is evidence"? Who has to decide there is "actually" evidence before I don't have to hold my "rabidly eager judgment" any longer?
Sort of. Comey, who we now know wrote her exoneration well in advance, proclaimed this. It was a sham investigation which is why they are seeking to re-open it and do it properly. Comey flat out admitted that Clinton broke the law.
No "sort of," David. Comey "actually" said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted a case against Clinton.
You're welcome to your "rabidly eager judgment" about the FBI's investigation of her case.
Do you view it as pure coincidence that it was people from Russia - out of all the countries on earth - that so many Trump campaign people had contacts with? Can you name a country with whom Clinton campaign people had a comparable number of contacts?
I view it as a wild imagination. Have you ever talked to a Russian Bill? I have, I guess I must be a criminal too.
Whether I - ONE person - have "ever" talked to a Russian is not at all the issue here. The issue is MANY people connected to ONE political organization (the Trump campaign) having MANY contacts with people from ONE country (Russia) over a SHORT period of time during a campaign for president of the United States (the 18 months after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015).
So I ask again: In your view/surmise/speculation, what were ALL those Trump campaign contacts - NOT those of any one person - with Russians about? Was it just coincidence that SO MANY Trump campaign people had SO MANY contacts with Russians? Out of all the countries on earth, why Russia, the nation that just happened to interfere with our election in 2016, and did so, according to our intelligence community, with the intent of helping to elect Donald Trump? Does that not even raise your curiosity?
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Of course they have the right to, that's the 1st Amendment.
Sure, so I would suggest you hold your rabidly eager judgement until there actually is evidence.So I have a first amendment right to believe and declare that there is evidence the Trump campaign broke the law, but should not believe or declare that the Trump campaign broke the law until YOU decide "there actually is evidence"? Who has to decide there is "actually" evidence before I don't have to hold my "rabidly eager judgment" any longer?
Why do you insist on making me say things I did not actually say? There has been zero evidence put forth against the Trump campaign to date. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. So you can believe there is evidence, but you cannot honestly declare there is evidence unless you know something nobody else does.
Sort of. Comey, who we now know wrote her exoneration well in advance, proclaimed this. It was a sham investigation which is why they are seeking to re-open it and do it properly. Comey flat out admitted that Clinton broke the law.
No "sort of," David. Comey "actually" said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted a case against Clinton.
I think you should read what he actually said a little closer, it was a well-calculated political statement:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
>You're welcome to your "rabidly eager judgment" about the FBI's investigation of her case.
Do you view it as pure coincidence that it was people from Russia - out of all the countries on earth - that so many Trump campaign people had contacts with? Can you name a country with whom Clinton campaign people had a comparable number of contacts?
I view it as a wild imagination. Have you ever talked to a Russian Bill? I have, I guess I must be a criminal too.
Whether I - ONE person - have "ever" talked to a Russian is not at all the issue here. The issue is MANY people connected to ONE political organization (the Trump campaign) having MANY contacts with people from ONE country (Russia) over a SHORT period of time during a campaign for president of the United States (the 18 months after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015).
Sure that is the issue here. Unless you come up with some hardcore evidence, get over it.
So I ask again: In your view/surmise/speculation, what were ALL those Trump campaign contacts - NOT those of any one person - with Russians about? Was it just coincidence that SO MANY Trump campaign people had SO MANY contacts with Russians? Out of all the countries on earth, why Russia? Does that not even raise your curiosity?
First, we would need to see how many contacts were made to other countries as well. Good Grief.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Why do you insist on making me say things I did not actually say?I simply put together two of your statements with the help of the assumption that you would be the one who decided whether there is "actually evidence" to justify my not holding my "rabidly eager judgment" any longer (see next paragraph).
There has been zero evidence put forth against the Trump campaign to date. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. So you can believe there is evidence, but you cannot honestly declare there is evidence unless you know something nobody else does.
The problem here is that you seem to think that YOU decide what I can and can't "honestly declare." I think I know better than you what I "honestly" believe. And I DO "honestly declare" my belief there is evidence of wrongdoing in the Trump 2016 campaign. You're welcome to "honestly declare" your disagreement.
No "sort of," David. Comey "actually" said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted a case against Clinton.
I think you should read what he actually said a little closer, it was a well-calculated political statement:
"Evidence of potential violations" of the law, Comey said they found. He doesn't even contend there was evidence of ACTUAL violations! Should Bob Mueller apply that standard to his investigation of the Trump campaign? If he finds evidence of "potential" violations, should he prosecute, even if he doesn't find evidence of ACTUAL violations?
Comey's was a "political statement"? Your view. I disagree.
Whether I - ONE person - have "ever" talked to a Russian is not at all the issue here. The issue is MANY people connected to ONE political organization (the Trump campaign) having MANY contacts with people from ONE country (Russia) over a SHORT period of time during a campaign for president of the United States (the 18 months after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015).
Sure that is the issue here. Unless you come up with some hardcore evidence, get over it.
Here your standard is "hardcore evidence." Is it your view that the "evidence of potential violations" of law that the FBI found in the Clinton case satisfied your "hardcore evidence" standard?
So I ask again: In your view/surmise/speculation, what were ALL those Trump campaign contacts - NOT those of any one person - with Russians about? Was it just coincidence that SO MANY Trump campaign people had SO MANY contacts with Russians? Out of all the countries on earth, why Russia? Does that not even raise your curiosity?
First, we would need to see how many contacts were made to other countries as well. Good Grief.
And yet again you evade the question, David.
Russia - not "other countries" - interfered in our 2016 election, according to our intelligence community, with the intent to help elect Donald Trump. To my knowledge, no other country interfered in our 2016 election to the extent Russia did; but I'll gladly receive the links you provide to information about other countries' interference.
You don't have to know what "other countries" the Trump campaign contacted during the campaign to provide your "view/surmise/speculation" about the campaign's 70+ contacts with Russia.
And you don't have to know about those "other countries" to say whether it even raises your curiosity that so many people associated with the Trump campaign had 70+ contacts with people in the country that just happened to be interfering in our election with the intention of electing Donald Trump.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Why do you insist on making me say things I did not actually say?I simply put together two of your statements with the help of the assumption that you would be the one who decided whether there is "actually evidence" to justify my not holding my "rabidly eager judgment" any longer (see next paragraph).
There has been zero evidence put forth against the Trump campaign to date. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. So you can believe there is evidence, but you cannot honestly declare there is evidence unless you know something nobody else does.
The problem here is that you seem to think that YOU decide what I can and can't "honestly declare." I think I know better than you what I "honestly" believe. And I DO "honestly declare" my belief there is evidence of wrongdoing in the Trump 2016 campaign. You're welcome to "honestly declare" your disagreement.
My point was that you cannot be honest in declaring that there is evidence when you don't know. It's an opinion. Until there is evidence it can be declared that there is no evidence. If there is ever evidence produced, then yes, I will say there is evidence. But at this time, there is none.
No "sort of," David. Comey "actually" said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted a case against Clinton.
I think you should read what he actually said a little closer, it was a well-calculated political statement:
"Evidence of potential violations" of the law, Comey said they found. He doesn't even contend there was evidence of ACTUAL violations! Should Bob Mueller apply that standard to his investigation of the Trump campaign? If he finds evidence of "potential" violations, should he prosecute, even if he doesn't find evidence of ACTUAL violations?
Comey's was a "political statement"? Your view. I disagree.
Yes we highly disagree and there is much evidence to the fact that the whole investigation was a sham and political.
Whether I - ONE person - have "ever" talked to a Russian is not at all the issue here. The issue is MANY people connected to ONE political organization (the Trump campaign) having MANY contacts with people from ONE country (Russia) over a SHORT period of time during a campaign for president of the United States (the 18 months after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015).
Sure that is the issue here. Unless you come up with some hardcore evidence, get over it.
Here your standard is "hardcore evidence." Is it your view that the "evidence of potential violations" of law that the FBI found in the Clinton case satisfied your "hardcore evidence" standard?
Yes, there was hardcore evidence that she broke the law. Comey started focusing on intent which has nothing to do with whether someone should be prosecuted.
So I ask again: In your view/surmise/speculation, what were ALL those Trump campaign contacts - NOT those of any one person - with Russians about? Was it just coincidence that SO MANY Trump campaign people had SO MANY contacts with Russians? Out of all the countries on earth, why Russia? Does that not even raise your curiosity?
First, we would need to see how many contacts were made to other countries as well. Good Grief.
And yet again you evade the question, David.
I didn't evade the question Bill. I said I don't know. It would depend how many contacts were made with other countries. How many contacts did the Clinton campaign have? Too many variables.
Russia - not "other countries" - interfered in our 2016 election, according to our intelligence community, with the intent to help elect Donald Trump. To my knowledge, no other country interfered in our 2016 election to the extent Russia did; but I'll gladly receive the links you provide to information about other countries' interference.
We don't know that other countries did not influence our elections. Russia is just the one under the microscope.
You don't have to know what "other countries" the Trump campaign contacted during the campaign to provide your "view/surmise/speculation" about the campaign's 70+ contacts with Russia.
Sure it is relevant because it provides benchmarks.
And you don't have to know about those "other countries" to say whether it even raises your curiosity that so many people associated with the Trump campaign had 70+ contacts with people in the country that just happened to be interfering in our election with the intention of electing Donald Trump.
It doesn't raise my curiosity at all. I think it is stupid really to even care.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
My point was that you cannot be honest in declaring that there is evidence when you don't know. It's an opinion. Until there is evidence it can be declared that there is no evidence. If there is ever evidence produced, then yes, I will say there is evidence. But at this time, there is none.You say it's my "opinion" that there is evidence of wrongdoing. I say it's your "opinion" that there isn't.
Yes we highly disagree and there is much evidence to the fact that the whole investigation was a sham and political.
You know, the way Comey announced the re-opening of the Clinton investigation eleven or so days before the 2016 election sure did seem political, didn't it? If ANYTHING Comey did showed animus toward Trump, it was his reminding people of Clinton's questionable handling of classified information just days before they voted!! At the time I might have told you his reopening of the probe was a "sham." On reflection, however, I think he just made a mistake - not a partisan political or a "sham" mistake, but a mistake in judgment.
You didn't respond to the question I asked about Comey's statement from which you quoted: Should Bob Mueller apply the "evidence of potential violations" standard to his investigation of the Trump campaign that contributed to the FBI's decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton? If Mueller finds evidence of "potential" violations in the Trump campaign's actions, should he prosecute, even if he doesn't find evidence of ACTUAL violations?
And you don't have to know about those "other countries" to say whether it even raises your curiosity that so many people associated with the Trump campaign had 70+ contacts with people in the country that just happened to be interfering in our election with the intention of electing Donald Trump.
It doesn't raise my curiosity at all. I think it is stupid really to even care.
However off track our discussions veer, David, I can count on you to toss in an "apples and oranges" or "stupid" to remind me who's on the other end of the forum thread from me.
-
This conversation reminds me of the time when I was about 5 years old. I woke up terrified because there were wolves under my bed. I yelled for mama and told her there were wolves under the bed. Mama got down on her hands and knees and looked all around. She said she didn't see any wolves there and invited me to take a look as well. Sure enough. No wolves.
Bill, This is a good example of how kind people on this forum like David are informing you. Have a look. There are no wolves under your bed. You can get on with life now, without fear and fuss.
-
What President Trump have to hide are as much as he is, says and doesn't say. Mueller's Investigation would bring out the parts that are against the American Laws and God the others. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave; When first we practice to deceive." CM
Though commonly attributed to the Bard, Shakespeare never wrote this. In all truth, **the line belongs to Sir Walter Scott, from his 1808 poem Marmion.** CM
-
@C_M_ said:
What President Trump have to hide are as much as he is, says and doesn't say. Mueller's Investigation would bring out the parts that are against the American Laws and God the others. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave; When first we practice to deceive." CMI change one word in your prediction, CM. Mueller WILL bring out Trump and company's illegal activities; he WILL pursue and produce justice.
Yesterday, the president of the United States outright lied (again) about his infamous border wall. He tweeted out pictures of a fence in California that's being repaired/replaced in a project that's been on the books since 2009, and claimed the fence is part of the new border wall. It's not. Trump lied. Again.
But the president has normalized presidential mandacity. Many Americans have grown immune to the corrosive effects of lies from the White House to the point that ONLY the justice system - where lying is still unacceptable and intolerable conduct - can hold him accountable. I believe it will - him and his campaign, members of which, I believe, did far more than simply lie - in the form of the Mueller investigation.
-
Perspective:
God will pursue and produce justice. He will judge by Christ according to His Word--which some will say isn't the Truth of God. Some may have the audacity to accuse God even at their own judgment: "Jesus got it wrong."
Such people--what do you think of their diatribes against their president?
-
I am sure that any honest person who cares about the government will read this well-documented, positively reviewed book by an experienced, respected journalist:
How Donald J. Trump Saved America From Hillary Clinton
https://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Happened-America-Hillary/dp/0986193313
Howie Carr is the New York Times best-selling author of The Brothers Bulger and Hitman, in addition to several other Boston organized-crime books and two novels. He is the host of a New England-wide radio talk-show syndicated to more than 20 stations, and is a member of the Radio Hall of Fame in Chicago. He is also a columnist for the Boston Herald, and has won a National Magazine Award for Boston Magazine. He is also a contributor to Breitbart.com.
Boston organized-crime boss Whitey Bulger was so infuriated by Carr’s groundbreaking reporting that he once put out a murder contract on Carr, a story detailed on 60 Minutes. At his 2013 trial on murder and racketeering charges, Bulger tried to have Carr banned from the courtroom by calling him as a defense witness. Now imprisoned for life in Arizona, the crime czar still says his greatest regret was not murdering Carr when he had the chance. Carr once taught a course at Harvard, where he had to cross a picket line against himself to get to his class.
-
@GaoLu said:
Perspective:God will pursue and produce justice. He will judge by Christ according to His Word--which some will say isn't the Truth of God. Some may have the audacity to accuse God even at their own judgment: "Jesus got it wrong."
Such people--what do you think of their diatribes against their president?
- What President?
- "What do you think of their diatribes against their president?" So, you said.
My answer? The same thing I think of one's "diatribes against" Hillary & Bill Clinton. I don't need to defend or take up for them. I am suggesting, we don't go down that road. It's so telling of the one who raised the question. Let's watch (currently) the main show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
- What President?
Yours. The one you as a country wanted.
- "What do you think of their diatribes against their president?" So, you said.
My answer? The same thing I think of one's "diatribes against" Hillary & Bill Clinton. I don't need to defend or take up for them. I am suggesting, we don't go down that road. It's so telling of the one who raised the question. Let's watch (currently) the main show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. CM
So you made the same diatribes against Hillary and Bill? Hmmm. Have you been living in the gall of bitterness that long?
We need defend no one. That is no interest of mine. The thing that matters to me is that some people don't keep forever 1) drinking the poison of bitterness 2) Spewing our bitterness out all over others. God can take care of himself and others. He doesn't need our emotional wreckage to help Him. Such people clearly are very unhappy and as has been intimated already, might do well to get help if they can't snap out of it.
That is how I see it and that is my choice.
-
GaoLu,
I understood what you have written, but I don't know what you mean. Are you crying out or afraid of something? Or, are you trying to project something on others in this forum?
You seem to be stuck on the expression of "drinking the poison of bitterness" thing. It 's an illustration you show no regards to how others feel.Notwithstanding, no one is defending anyone and definitely not trying to play God. I was holding up the mirror to some of your Mr. Trump's actions or lack thereof. Lives are hurt and destroyed. Look at firings, approx. every 9-days, a major figure is dismissed, etc. A tree is known by the fruit that it bears; so is a President. Where are the Christians Voices in the land?
Take heed to your own counsel when it comes to Bill, Hillary, & Obama. Trump is President. Accept it, but don't close your eyes to reality. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
GaoLu,
I understood what you have written, but I don't know what you mean. Are you crying out or afraid of something? Or, are you trying to project something on others in this forum?
You seem to be stuck on the expression of "drinking the poison of bitterness" thing. It 's an illustration you show no regards to how others feel.Notwithstanding, no one is defending anyone and definitely not trying to play God. I was holding up the mirror to some of your Mr. Trump's actions or lack thereof. Lives are hurt and destroyed. Look at firings, approx. every 9-days, a major figure is dismissed, etc. A tree is known by the fruit that it bears; so is a President. Where are the Christians Voices in the land?
Take heed to your own counsel when it comes to Bill, Hillary, & Obama. Trump is President. Accept it, but don't close your eyes to reality. CM
Calling out BS. Where in the world did you get the approx every 9 days figure?
-
Watch your letters, David. We don't need to reach that low.
As for firings, check Mr. Trump's tweets, a calendar, and the dismissals; on average, this is what it comes to the amount. He has the highest turnovers than any administration. Like most things in his life, he gets a "mulligan" (do-over) and it's acceptable. If the evangelical gives him a pass on his moral behavior, before and after, they voted for him; the general population is just following their lead. Sad! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Watch your letters, David. We don't need to reach that low.As for firings, check Mr. Trump's tweets, a calendar, and the dismissals; on average, this is what it comes to the amount. He has the highest turnovers than any administration. Like most things in his life, he gets a "mulligan" (do-over) and it's acceptable. If the evangelical gives him a pass on his moral behavior, before and after, they voted for him; the general population is just following their lead. Sad! CM
I'm calling out your lies. Show actual evidence of your claim. He does not fire a "major figure" approximately every nine days. Prove it. Give a source to your claim complete with the names/offices of those fired who are a "major figure" in the Administration.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Watch your letters, David. We don't need to reach that low.As for firings, check Mr. Trump's tweets, a calendar, and the dismissals; on average, this is what it comes to the amount. He has the highest turnovers than any administration. Like most things in his life, he gets a "mulligan" (do-over) and it's acceptable. If the evangelical gives him a pass on his moral behavior, before and after, they voted for him; the general population is just following their lead. Sad! CM
I'm calling out your lies. Show actual evidence of your claim. He does not fire a "major figure" approximately every nine days. Prove it. Give a source to your claim complete with the names/offices of those fired who are a "major figure" in the Administration.
David,
You're majoring in minors. You missed the main points I am making. Contrasted to what President Trump as promised and said in selecting people and getting things done, he is a failure by his own standards. He is a poor judge of character. The destruction of people's lives and reputations are the major points made. The average (9-day) intervals overall are an approximation.May I suggest you google the word, "ap·prox·i·mate·ly" -use in my post above- It is "used to show that something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact; roughly. e.g. "a journey of approximately two hours".
- Synonyms: roughly, about, around, circa, more or less, in the neighborhood of.
David, obsessing over the nebulous, I find to be witless. You are smarter than what you display on the forums of "Trump", "politics" and "guns." The forums on Bible and Religion you show a constant soundness of mind, even when I don't agree with you. Where is that you, here? Allow the better and the brighter, you, to visit these forums. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I'm calling out your lies. Show actual evidence of your claim. He does not fire a "major figure" approximately every nine days. Prove it. Give a source to your claim complete with the names/offices of those fired who are a "major figure" in the Administration.According to the Brookings Institute, during the first year of the Trump Administration, the turnover rate among what it calls "A-Team staffers" in the White House was at least twice (Reagan), and as much as five to six times (Bush 41and Bush 43), the rate during the first year of any of his previous five predecessors.
The turnover reported in those results resulted from causes in addition to firings, however, so additional information is required. According to a CNN chart of what it calls the "notable exits" from the administration so far this year, 17 people have left, an average of one every five days. Of those 17, four were fired, or an average of one every 24 days.
On the basis of that data, I propose the following fact-check conclusions:
- CM's claim that the Trump administration has the "highest turnovers" of any administration is true - by far - if the comparison is limited to consequential White House staffers in the six most recent incoming presidential administrations. The data offer no information about lower level White House staffers or administrations before Reagan's.
- CM's claim that a "major figure" in the Trump administration is fired "approx. every 9-days" is not true; the actual figure is one about every 24 days.
- The accuracy of your claim, David, that CM's assertion of fact about those firings was a "lie" cannot be determined from the available data. It likely won't surprise you that in my view, whether your claim of "lies" from another CD poster was appropriate and/or constructive CAN be determined quite readily.
-
I have no idea what the numbers are and don't much care. Trump is draining swamp. May he drain much more.
Smiling note to self:
Now listen to the bullfrogs croak to that one! Two like-minded bullfrogs cut from the same hide. Listen to them echo each other. Two bullfrogs may sound like a pondful, but its really just two bullfrogs. -
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I'm calling out your lies. Show actual evidence of your claim. He does not fire a "major figure" approximately every nine days. Prove it. Give a source to your claim complete with the names/offices of those fired who are a "major figure" in the Administration.According to the Brookings Institute, during the first year of the Trump Administration, the turnover rate among what it calls "A-Team staffers" in the White House was at least twice (Reagan), and as much as five to six times (Bush 41and Bush 43), the rate during the first year of any of his previous five predecessors.
The turnover reported in those results resulted from causes in addition to firings, however, so additional information is required. According to a CNN chart of what it calls the "notable exits" from the administration so far this year, 17 people have left, an average of one every five days. Of those 17, four were fired, or an average of one every 24 days.
On the basis of that data, I propose the following fact-check conclusions:
- CM's claim that the Trump administration has the "highest turnovers" of any administration is true - by far - if the comparison is limited to consequential White House staffers in the six most recent incoming presidential administrations. The data offer no information about lower level White House staffers or administrations before Reagan's.
- CM's claim that a "major figure" in the Trump administration is fired "approx. every 9-days" is not true; the actual figure is one about every 24 days.
That's for 2018 correct? He's been in office for over a year.
- The accuracy of your claim, David, that CM's assertion of fact about those firings was a "lie" cannot be determined from the available data. It likely won't surprise you that in my view, whether your claim of "lies" from another CD poster was appropriate and/or constructive CAN be determined quite readily.
It certainly was not a truth, and by the standards you hold the President to, that means it was a lie.
All of that being said, I don't even know why @C_M_ brought up the point to begin with. Why does it matter how many people Trump fires and with what frequency? It is his staff, not the nations. HIS staff, HIS advisors. He gets to do what he wants in that department.
-
@GaoLu said:
I have no idea what the numbers are and don't much care. Trump is draining swamp. May he drain much more.Smiling note to self:
Now listen to the bullfrogs croak to that one! Listen to them echo each other. Two bullfrogs may sound like a pondful, but its really just two bullfrogs."Trump is draining swamp"? Those held over from the Obama Administration, I can understand, but don't justify. However, what about his own handed-picked cabinet and White House staff? These are his people. Obama nor Hillary had anything to do with it. He wants loyalty and doesn't reflect it to his cabinet and staff. I have seen an alfa-male wolf with more commitment and concern than your President has shown to those he has selected. Your President is a poor judge of character, management and the role of the office. Even a frog would jump out immediately when placed in a pot of hot water.
Even Mr. Trump so-called "draining the swamp" is poorly thought out and managed. Doesn't he know that when a swamp is drained, however, well-meaning, one destroys the balance of the ecosystem? He who destroys nature, in her own time, nature will destroy (takes back-- e.g. Florida homes, barrier islands, beachfront homes, etc.). Oh, I forgot, Mr. Trump doesn't believe in "climate change." I guess he has to experience nature's "Karma." This could explain why he can't get a decent lawyer to work for him. Cash-rich and lawyer poor. CM
-
Back when I was managing government contracts (which I did for 7 years--6.9 years too many), I sometimes hired people I thought were good. I was wrong. I let go the ones that were a bad match. I drained the swamp. At a much more critical level, Trump is doing what any businessman does. Apparently, you have no experience with such things. May I recommend this book:
Fire Someone today by Logos' own Bob Pritchett.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004GJVXKC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1You remind me of what Ben Franklin said:
“Presumption first blinds a Man, then sets him a running.” -
@davidtaylorjr said:
It certainly was not a truth, and by the standards you hold the President to, that means it was a lie.
Please look up the following words (share the here):
- Lie= _____________________
- Approximately = _____________________
- Estimate= ___________________________
- Humility = __________________________
Would you admit you were hasty in your conclusions (in saying I lied) or do you only listen to confessions?
All of that being said, I don't even know why @C_M_ brought up the point to begin with. Why does it matter how many people Trump fires and with what frequency? It is his staff, not the nations. HIS staff, HIS advisors. He gets to do what he wants in that department.
David, you really don't get it? I thought you were joking. Have you not comprehended the trend of the conversation, that you still have to ask, "I don't even know why @C_M_ brought up the point, to begin with?" Oops, I'm sorry. Mr. Trump poorly selected his staff and cabinet. He destroys people's names & reputations working for him. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
On the basis of that data, I propose the following fact-check conclusions:
- CM's claim that the Trump administration has the "highest turnovers" of any administration is true - by far - if the comparison is limited to consequential White House staffers in the six most recent incoming presidential administrations. The data offer no information about lower level White House staffers or administrations before Reagan's.
- CM's claim that a "major figure" in the Trump administration is fired "approx. every 9-days" is not true; the actual figure is one about every 24 days.
That's for 2018 correct? He's been in office for over a year.
I intended to be precise in my characterization of the data available from the two sources to which I linked.
- "During the first year of the Trump administration" means during its first 365 days, from January 20, 2017, through January 19, 2018.
- "So far this year" in the CNN report means since January 1, 2018. [FWIW, during the 345 days of 2017 that Donald Trump was president, CNN counts 27 "major figures" as having left the administration - an average of one every 13 days - seven of whom were fired - an average of one every 50 days. Clearly, the pace of both departures and firings has increased significantly in the last three months compared to 2017.
- The accuracy of your claim, David, that CM's assertion of fact about those firings was a "lie" cannot be determined from the available data. It likely won't surprise you that in my view, whether your claim of "lies" from another CD poster was appropriate and/or constructive CAN be determined quite readily.
It certainly was not a truth, and by the standards you hold the President to, that means it was a lie.
I don't understand what MY standards for the labels I attach to the president of the United States have to do with YOUR standards for the labels YOU attach to other CD posters. Do MY standards for the president determine YOUR standards for other CD posters?
All of that being said, I don't even know why @C_M_ brought up the point to begin with. Why does it matter how many people Trump fires and with what frequency? It is his staff, not the nations. HIS staff, HIS advisors. He gets to do what he wants in that department.
CM will speak for himself as he sees fit on the issue of his raise. In my view, the issue of staff turnover matters because continuity (aka, longevity of service) brings experience, more productive relationships with congressional leaders and other decision makers, and increased stability to our relationships with allies and adversaries.
Consider two churches from the same ecclesiastical tradition - one that has called a new pastor every year for the last ten years, and the other that has been served by the same pastor for those years. Which church is MORE LIKELY to have experienced more effective pastoral leadership over that decade? [OF COURSE it's possible that the ten changes church could have had the more effective leadership! But knowing what we know about the benefits of longer-term ministries, which church is MORE LIKELY to have experienced more effective pastoral leadership?]
Just because the president has the RIGHT to fire or force out lots of people doesn't mean it's good for the country that he or she does so.
