Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
In red is my pointing out what trump said that I in no way implied was illegal, in blue is my example that would be illegal but you and many other fools on OPP would consider legal.
As you choose to engage in dishonest discussion, I exercise my right to ignore you. Now should you choose to engage in HONEST discussion in the future, please do let me know, until then, we have nothing to discuss. Reply to my posts/post new messages to me all you like, just don't anticipate a response until you change your ways. Engaging in dishonest discourse is the tool that those without a valid argument choose to use in order to try to make the other look foolish. It only works on the weak minded with little to no actual reading comprehension. If it works with you and your friends, what do you think that says about you and those you befriend?
In color=red red /color is my pointing out what ... (
show quote)
Talk about dishonest. You wrote my response to a different assertion and did NOT write my response to the Trump quote you attempted to use to prove his illegality.
On Jun 12, 2019 21:53:16, you wrote a post including,
"Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant. As he stated during his campaign and it is becoming painfully obvious since "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.". He was right, he could openly break the law and he won't lose his supporters. If he were to set out to prove what he said on the campaign trail and actually pick a random target in the middle of 5th Ave., that would be legal because he did it openly?"
My response to those comments was, "So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!"
You claimed my response to the above comment was, "It shouldn't surprise me that you make assertions which when challenged you first redirect by saying you never made such assertions" In actuality that response was to,
Jun 13, 2019 22:08:24 "I see that you looked at the Mueller report with the same "ignore the facts" glasses that others here have read it with. Great job toeing that party line.
As for "So what has Trump done which is illegal? No I don't mean politically incorrect, but illegal. And saying you believe you could get away with a crime is NOT a crime!". I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did. I really wonder about your reading comprehension. As for your question, Since you haven't the reading comprehension to properly read the report, I don't suppose answering this question will be worth my effort.
As for "There are others who HAVE seen Trump's generosity.", I haven't found any evidence on a credible site and it seems way out of character for him so pardon me if I choose not to believe that claim without actual evidence from a reliable source. the closest I thought I might have been coming to evidence of his benevolence was
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/9/29/a-quick-look-at-donald-trumps-philanthropy.html, but I refuse to sign up or donate or whatever the popup box was requiring just to read an article. It isn't a site that I expect to be visiting that frequently."
Going back to your writing, "I never once suggested that his saying he could commit a crime and not lose voters was a crime. Just another instance of you implying I have said something I clearly never did." You are correct that you didn't use the word 'crime'. You used the words, 'questionable legality' which is why I asked what was it he did which was illegal. Since you followed that with an example of Trump's statement about being able to get away with a crime, a reasonable person would assume when making an assertion followed by an example, that the example backed up the assertion. If I was wrong about making the assumption you followed typical writing practices of using examples to back up your assertions; then apologize. So what WAS your example trying to back up?
You also claimed I asserted, "As for your assertion that accepting subsidies in exchange for creating jobs, please provide the the facts that back your assertion."
That is NOT what I asserted. My assertion was that Obama created jobs but Trump instead created the environment for business to flourish instead of creating jobs. {Now in case you don't understand what that means; the businesses which expanded, returned production to our shores, or newly started; would all create jobs.} One way Obama created jobs was by literally creating jobs whose employees got paid directly through government checks funded 100% by taxpayers money. Another was by subsidizing businesses in the stated goals being those businesses would use the funding to hire more employees. There was no requirement the businesses had to hire more employees. And another type of subsidy he employed was tax subsidies.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-uses-subsidies-to-outsource-american-jobs-to-chinaBut my assertion was a simplistic one looking at a single factor. This article gives a broader understanding of some of the factors going into Obama's claim regarding job creation, but does not cover the subsidies.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/12/the_truth_about_obamas_job_record_125568.htmlNow as to which Bush, yes there were two. But most people would realize that when stringing three presidents policies together in a series [Clinton, Bush, and Obama] AND referring to policies which were initiated or carried out under the GW Bush administration and NOT under the GHW Bush administration; that I would mean the Bush who came between Clinton and Obama. But to make it plain, I was referring to George Walker Bush, NOT George Herbert Walker Bush.