Replies

You write a crock, of fantasy worthy of your moniker. You have inverted reality, it is the Trump bots such as yourself who turned this forum into a Pravda in which you indulged the most base kind of political discourse.

It was the Trump bots who attacked those who supported Ted Cruz with the most outlandish charges, most of which a reasonable person must conclude have boomeranged on Donald Trump by now. For example, where is Goldman Sachs firmly ensconced but in the Trump cabinet?

Ad hominem became the go to method to swarm anyone who cited a fact against Donald Trump.

As the Trump administration keeps some promises but betrays others, your tactics are confusing fewer and fewer conservatives. I suggest you follow my example and praise Trump when he commits an act of conservatism and oppose him when he reverts to the leftist tendencies of his daughter and son-in-law

It was the Trump bots who attacked those who supported Ted Cruz with the most outlandish charges, most of which a reasonable person must conclude have boomeranged on Donald Trump by now.

Ancient history, let's move on.

Smh. NB, you are talking to a Trump supporter. Your spin doesn't work here. I started out as a Cruz supporter, and ***even before I shifted to Trump*** I was viciously attacked for (supposedly) being a Trump supporter. (Believe me, that didn't make my decision to switch to Trump any harder.)

I spent long mos being demonized in every way imaginable. If I had a dollar for every nasty name I was called, I could buy an annuity.

Which brings me to how many times I saw Trump called, "a sleaze." Now that is a persuasive argument (it isn't). But considering the other things Trump was called (by Cruz supporters), 'sleaze,' was not really so bad.

Now you say you don't hate Trump. Your words say otherwise. When you are parroting Hillary's lines to minimize Trump's victories and successes, you undercut your claim not to hate him. If it walks like a duck...

As to the rest, mull this over for a while. ShareBlue is the Soros-funded online anti-Trump brigade; ShariaBlue is their nic:

Red alert: ShariaBlue caught posting fake rumors about Bannon/Kushner all over pro Trump channel. The goal is to alienate Trump's populist activist base.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/64am42/red_alert_shariablue_caught_posting_fake_rumors/

Oh, and speaking of ad hominem, have a look in the mirror. You need some practice sticking to the issue, and leaving petty personal barbs out of it.

As the Trump administration keeps some promises but betrays others, your tactics are confusing fewer and fewer conservatives. I suggest you follow my example and praise Trump when he commits an act of conservatism and oppose him when he reverts to the leftist tendencies of his daughter and son-in-law.

Agree.

Bashing the Freedom Caucus, Kushner/Goldman Sachs, Tillerson going to Moscow with "evidence," and now Haley calling for "regime change" are very disturbing developments.

But it is far too early to abandon Trump at this point. By September we should have a good idea where the Trump Train is heading.

Let's hope for the best.

Ad hominem became the go to method to swarm anyone who cited a fact against Donald Trump.

“Facts” are most definitely what Cruz and his most slavishly devoted followers here almost never cited about Trump during the primary—and some to this day are still more interested in rumors, distortions, and leftwing talking points against Trump than “facts” (even though that only helps the Dems really). At least 80-90% of the attacks on Trump I saw from Cruzers during the primaries were either outright lies or contained extreme distortions or highly misleading spin. I periodically worked to refute these sort of things with facts, direct quotes, and even citations, but what I could do was only a drop in the bucket. Everyone here too can easily remember that the Cruz supporters were throwing around ad hominem attacks just as quickly as Trump supporters—but you apparently only care about your side.

Nathanbedford, your posts are well written, but it seems to me that you were wrong about Trump almost 100% of the time during the campaign. That makes it challenging to put any credence behind your current analyses and future prognostications about him. You also don’t seem to realize how your long-term dislike and distrust of Trump and your preconceived ideas of how things should be done color your evaluations of him, even though that comes through fairly obviously in your posts, although you mostly seem to be trying to sound even-handed and just analytical. You may have been positive about Trump in 2 or 3% of your posts about him, but that hardly makes you fair or balances your overwhelming negativity towards him. I don’t mean this as an attack, and I’m happy to read your posts still, but this is the way it honestly appears to me.

As the Trump administration keeps some promises but betrays others, your tactics are confusing fewer and fewer conservatives. I suggest you follow my example and praise Trump when he commits an act of conservatism and oppose him when he reverts to the leftist tendencies of his daughter and son-in-law

This is what I would appreciate more of on FR. That people can praise DT actions when he acts conservatively without being labeled a Trump-bot, but also be able to criticize actions we disagree with when they are not conservative without being labeled a Never Trumper. We need to be thoughtful and evaluate actions, not words, and look at all the actions taken together. I do not appreciate the atmosphere lately that any criticism of Donald Trump immediately means you are a disloyal traitor. We should not be engaging in a cult of personality like the Democrats did for Obama or Hillary.