POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

It is only possible to make this argument by making up false information about the agreement.

 

You just made up a position for him. He said you wanted Sanders.

 

If common would mean millions, I think it is very safe to call it common. If it means a majority of Americans, maybe not. If you think Unimane and I are exceptionally far left or fringe, then why are national elections so close?

 

Well thought out and strategic ones that protect national security and interests. Not sweeping ones that hurt more people than they help.

It's strange for me to have to argue what protectionist policies I might hypothetically find favorable without someone here defending the ones that are actually being put into policy that I am objecting to. I haven't called for any. Trump did, and I said I didn't like them.

 

When did I say anything about you being exceptionally far left and national elections not being close?

 

I'm just curious what a good one is for you? One implemented by Bernie?

 

I think any fair reading of his comment would see the implication within the context of the statement. Note that I said fair, so I don't expect to hear a chorus from the conservative-minded people here.

 

If my opinions on Trump were uncommon? As in, an outlier? I said "if," so if that hat doesn't fit, so be it.

 

I have no idea if I would agree with what he implemented. Do you have a specific example? I am not a demagogue, the name or party doesn't decide how I feel about anything. This is in contrast with the Republican Party, who supported free trade and "not picking winners or losers" and then has promptly and silently lined up behind doing just that.

 

I said I was not sure it was common opinion that people don't like virtually everything he has done. That is me calling you an outlier?

 

An example of what Bernie would implement?

 

So like the car industry in the 80’s

 

The steel industry could be argued to pretty important to national security and I’d say almost all protectionism hurts more than they help or that’s just how business would be done

 

He left a question mark and basically asked you to explain the apparent inconsistency. Pull your panties out of your vagina.

 

It's not, IP.

It was a treaty.

It should have been approved as such, or never agreed to in the first place.

If you were for it being entered into, then it was in opposition to the Constitution.

 

It was a treaty.

The Constitution is clear on what we do with treaties, and their required approval by 2/3rds of the Senate.

 

Entirely fair.

 

Thought the same, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that a vast number of people do dislike him.

 

It was voluntary until someday it wasn't.

Treating it as a treaty - which it was, and you know it - would have accounted for what would have occurred, if the agreement ever changed.

 

I'm the least inclined to defend the GOP....

But when it comes to America and Americans, I absolutely want them to pick winners - US.

And i'm ok if that means the someone else that has to lose is: NOT American and NOT Americans