TakeYouToTasker

Your post isn't useful or helpful. Nor is your disrespect for the office.

A criminal enterprise like Wikileaks?

OpEds are great reads if you also read the source material. If you have the facts, and they don't align with OpEds being disseminated by political operatives, you can use them to effectively torch a narrative. The problem with posting OpEds is when individuals post them as source material themselves.

Wait, wait, wait... You think restaurants had separate lunch counters and barriers for blacks and whites because the restaurants were in favor of discrimination? They had them because the law required it.

Right. We should take the OpEd of an agenda driven, paid progressive mouth piece as the definitive accounting. Brilliant.

It's an oversimplification to use economic growth data when talking about economic growth recovering from a recession? Also, Politifact is a left leaning organization. Since it's split with Congressional Quarterly it's assessments of political truths have found fault with three times more conservative statements than liberal, and have found nine times more conservative statements to be egregiously untrue. Don't look to members of the media or "fact checkers" to inform you. They're all reporting with a bias. Look at the data.

Entered as evidence that you know absolutely nothing about the way businesses invest, or the business cycle. Yes, the slowest economic recovery in history coming out of a recession. When the hell else would an economy recover? What else would it recover from? The truth is that the United States economy goes through a recession roughly every 5-8 years, some worse than others. The most recent recession wasn't the worst ever. It arguably wasn't as bad as the double dip of the 1980's. It certainly wasn't as bad as the Great Depression, and yet economic growth coming out of the recession was the worst ever, despite adding 10 trillion dollars to the national debt.

A high coming off the slowest economic recovery in history?

The issue is with your apparent inability to think critically, your immediate reporting to confirmation biases, and your laying of charges without the ability to defend them. The fact that you think you've entered a nest of Trump supporters is beyond telling.

My only regret is that my computer won't allow me to pelt you with rotten fruit via the internet.

Well that's absolutely disgusting.

That's weird... you seem to have answered the question "What is the most vapid and ignorant thing you could possibly say?" without me ever asking. So far you haven't written a single thing in this thread that you've been able to support with actual evidence. If the things you're saying are true, it should be easy to source the evidence, no?

I see. Apparently the definition of "loudmouth" has been expanded to include expressing thoughts and ideas that #34fan disagrees with on twitter. The truth, which is apparently an anathema to you, is that he's not bombastic, and he doesn't engage in personal attacks, and doesn't really do or say anything offensive, unless of course you're a member of the new left who believes strongly in virtue signaling, and finds Republicanism offensive. I reviewed his twitter feed, and discovered that the only truly offensive things located there were in the replies. And there's the unveiling I've been looking for... You lack the ability to be objective because you're blinded by partisanship. More evidence would imply that you've offered any evidence at all to this point. Care to give me a list of reputable news outlets you'd recommend? I suspect that's because you're an unmitigated moron who doesn't understand how much of the world works.

Actually, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks of the man himself, the President has been an incredible boon to the office, as he's thrust a much needed, long overdue civics lesson on the nation.

Demonstrate that President Trumps children are spoiled and entitled to the detriment of the office of the President. If it's a position you hold, you should be able to defend it. If you don't like being put in this situation, I suggest not being so fast to take up the banner of posters making fiat declaration while engaging in fallacy. A simple mea culpa will suffice to put an end to this. I'm very familiar. I've been reading all the garbage you've been dumping in this thread all day. Now, would you care to defend your statements with evidence, or are you going to be another useless poster here, speaking his ignorance/lies into the world as if holding an opinion make it valuable in and of itself.

They do. It's a key ingredient in meatballs.

Make it a veal burger.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like you to defend the assertion as well if you're going to embrace it. My problem is with individuals making arguments built around conjecture and logical fallacies (like the special pleading #34fan engaged in while coming down hard on President Trump's children, while not only exempting Chelsea Clinton from similar criticism, even saying that what she did wasn't a problem because she understands politics and behaves appropriately.). I hang my hat on internal logical consistency. I'm trying to decide if you're really this dumb, or if you're just intellectually dishonest. Which is it?

Who cares. Defend the accusations you made upthread. "The Presidents children are loudmouths and entitled." Go.

YOU introduced the fact that they were born to President Trump as a pejorative meant to demean them and their participation in our government at the pleasure of our President. "Guilty" is the word appropriately used to describe the tenor of your inferences. Then you double down further with your choice of language with the use of "accomplices". Give me a break. Now, back to the matter at hand: you described the President's children as "loudmouthed and entitled". Defend that accusation.

I'm confused. When/why did we inject other countries into the conversation?

Right, right... Chelsea asking her mom if she could borrow the US Navy is fine, because the nature of the question itself doesn't betray a complete sense of entitlement trained to a level that she thought it was acceptable for her to take over private use of the US military. But that aside, tell me why you think the President's children, all very successful, are loudmouths and entitled; and also guilty of the sins of their father.

Again, the President doesn't represent you. Further, he's not supposed to represent you. That's a feature, not a flaw. That's the reason for the Electoral College.

You're talking about a massive change not only to our electoral process, but also the basic design of our Federal government away from what the Founders intended. You need to be aware that the President doesn't represent you. He is not intended to represent you. He is the figurehead representative of our Federal Government, The only person who represents you at the Federal level is your Congressperson in the House. The President represents the blended interests of the States comprising the Federal Government. That's it.