What Are the FACTS of why the left doesn't like Trump... NO OPINIONS

[Theseus]

5 minutes ago, Theseus said:

On top of all of this, I almost gave my life serving my country. My accident wasn't some accident while off duty in a car accident it was in the line of duty. It almost cost me my life and in a way it has. It almost cost me the ability to walk and talk because I had a TBI due to an improperly fitted O2 mask. So let's see, I did not take a bullet but I almost gave my life for you, I almost gave my ability to talk and walk at the age of 18 for you. I gave my career for you. I don't just say I "would" give my life because I was there at the precipice and almost did give my life. And if being without a heartbeat is giving my life then count me in since I was 18. So who is mocking whom?

And I would do it all again.

[GameChanger]

So, the reason I started this thread was to see how passion and opinion can overshadow "facts".  I will therefore state my opinion as if it has any value.  First, I have experienced and spoke with quite a few vets from WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afg, etc., where they have shared some dark places in their hearts as well as other thoughts.  The common thread is, even if they enlisted/were drafted for their country, in the end they fought to protect the brothers (and/or sisters) to the right and left of them all along carrying out the policy of the government.  Although "Country" was important and they are passionate about their country... they are MORE passionate of their comrades.  Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE would they not defend their brothers/sisters and yes... to the death. Extremely honorable and respectful. That passion/intensity runs deep... regardless of time spent in service.  The players in our government have a way to tap that passion.

 

The conservatives along with the FAR RIGHT and the liberals to include "Snowflakes" also have extreme passion... albeit from very different places in which  they will go to great lengths to protect their comrades, event to the point of looking the other way for their perceived greater good.

 

We have a government which polarizes us to perpetuate our perceived need for them. The government utilizes the media and weaponizes it.  We count on them to be defenders of our core beliefs (the Constitution and or religious).  One of the problems seems that we have different views on how our liberties/beliefs apply and to who they apply to.

 

I guess the core question is why are we so divided when the constitution is concrete and religion has been solidified over the ages.  They said, she did, he did, oh know he didn't, oh know they didn't... We are all grabbing at some resemblance of the TRUTH but it seems frequently fractured, inflated, deflated, distorted, and quite honestly more about opinion.  The media has tapped into our passion and is trying to direct us to SOME AGENDA. Facts matter and opinions can create passionate blindness.

 

Maybe, for the sake of sanity on this thread, we can move forward by sharing SOURCES of facts.  I KNOW people get opinions from many pundits and extreme view websites. If we can not get a consensus of what sites/sources are factual then we will NEVER begin to come together.  

 

 

If, during a discussion, both sides come in with their thoughts/facts that are 100% right without the remote possibility they may not be all that accurate... then there is NO chance of middle ground or resolution.   So, if you are going to spout off some "facts" you better have a viable source. Just because everyone agrees with your opinion doesn't necessarily make it fact. ie. "Hands up don't shoot."  Remember? Started one way and ended up another (after a full investigation).

 

So... I'll end with this...

What Are the FACTS of why the left doesn't like Trump... NO OPINIONS

[MyLadiesDaddy]

7 hours ago, Theseus said:

And I would do it all again.

My apologies, I simply misunderstood your comment about fodder. 

[Theseus]

6 hours ago, GameChanger said:

So, the reason I started this thread was to see how passion and opinion can overshadow "facts".  I will therefore state my opinion as if it has any value.  First, I have experienced and spoke with quite a few vets from WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afg, etc., where they have shared some dark places in their hearts as well as other thoughts.  The common thread is, even if they enlisted/were drafted for their country, in the end they fought to protect the brothers (and/or sisters) to the right and left of them all along carrying out the policy of the government.  Although "Country" was important and they are passionate about their country... they are MORE passionate of their comrades.  Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE would they not defend their brothers/sisters and yes... to the death. Extremely honorable and respectful. That passion/intensity runs deep... regardless of time spent in service.  The players in our government have a way to tap that passion.

 

The conservatives along with the FAR RIGHT and the liberals to include "Snowflakes" also have extreme passion... albeit from very different places in which  they will go to great lengths to protect their comrades, event to the point of looking the other way for their perceived greater good.

 

We have a government which polarizes us to perpetuate our perceived need for them. The government utilizes the media and weaponizes it.  We count on them to be defenders of our core beliefs (the Constitution and or religious).  One of the problems seems that we have different views on how our liberties/beliefs apply and to who they apply to.

 

I guess the core question is why are we so divided when the constitution is concrete and religion has been solidified over the ages.  They said, she did, he did, oh know he didn't, oh know they didn't... We are all grabbing at some resemblance of the TRUTH but it seems frequently fractured, inflated, deflated, distorted, and quite honestly more about opinion.  The media has tapped into our passion and is trying to direct us to SOME AGENDA. Facts matter and opinions can create passionate blindness.

 

Maybe, for the sake of sanity on this thread, we can move forward by sharing SOURCES of facts.  I KNOW people get opinions from many pundits and extreme view websites. If we can not get a consensus of what sites/sources are factual then we will NEVER begin to come together.  

 

 

If, during a discussion, both sides come in with their thoughts/facts that are 100% right without the remote possibility they may not be all that accurate... then there is NO chance of middle ground or resolution.   So, if you are going to spout off some "facts" you better have a viable source. Just because everyone agrees with your opinion doesn't necessarily make it fact. ie. "Hands up don't shoot."  Remember? Started one way and ended up another (after a full investigation).

 

So... I'll end with this...

What Are the FACTS of why the left doesn't like Trump... NO OPINIONS

Truth is and always be subjective. Truth relies on evidence to be interpreted and analyzed by each person and then formed into an experience. This experience is what gives us individual truths. Ask 15 people about an incident and you should come away with 15 "truths". What you are asking for is absolute truths which are different than truths because in absolute truth in an incident all 15 people will come up with the same truth (for example the color of a shirt but this too has doubt see the social media experiment in which the social media world went into a tizzy over the color of an article of clothing ). When there is ambiguity left up for interpretation as the US Constitution is left up for interpretation, as it is a living document, you will have multiple truths. People will be people and it will be a conglomerate of interpretations which make up the core of these truths. Absolute truths found within the US Constitution are the inalienable rights which are not up for interpretation because when asked about them every person in the land knows without a doubt what that is. The term "free speech" is highly interpretable based on level and context. Can you scream fire in a theater or bomb in an airport terminal? If not, is your free speech hindered?     

 

When people have to interpret it becomes a biased truth and not an absolute truth. There are literally thousands of so-called truths people come away from the US Constitution with that they can promulgate evidence for their truths. Here I speak of highly educated Constitutional Law scholars, you know the people who have studied the US Constitution for a good deal of their lives.

 

Experience plays into truth. Is anything really truth? In your eyes, you may subject your past experience to your version of the truth but in the end it may not be the truth. For example, when you see a teenager smiling and smirking in front of an elderly man, you might think the truth is that that kid is taunting the elderly man. However, when you pull out to see the bigger picture the truth may be the elderly man is actually taunting the younger into doing something to get a provocative reaction. Then yet again, a person who may have a different experience may only see the younger as enjoying the elderly man's actions and neither is taunting. 

 

Truth is subjective and is based on an interpretation of past experience. Only when there is an absolute truth, were based on past experience cannot be subject to bias in which all past experiences point to that singular truth. Politics has both absolute (an election result) and subjective truths (interpretation of words said by a political candidate) and the two are commonly conflated as people will be people. You might dismiss a truth based on your interpretation based on your past experience.

 

When you state only fact, a fact is considered a truth and the only true facts are raw numbers. Words in text and even more so in orral speech is highly subjective and can never be absolute truth. Early on there were chat rooms on the internet, words appeared on the screen and based on what that person was feeling at that particular time plus how the words were arranged led to some serious interpretations. If you have ever been angry because of text and later found out that you misinterpreted the text wrong than this illustrates my example well. Think of what you were thinking of, doing and how you felt about the person on the other end. Your truth was it was offensive and angered you, for whatever reason. This occurs in oral and written speech all the time.For example, I hate Trump because of such-and-such and what he just said, tweeted, or wrote just pissed me off to no end. This is an illustration not my belief. 

 

Statistics are not raw numbers as they have been manipulated to form information which can be interpreted to make an actionable decision. When you ask for facts, you need to specify the type of facts you seek. An article is truth in the eyes of the author but does it make it a fact? Not necessarily. Because 15 people come together and say it is a fact does not make a fact a fact, it makes it an agreed upon interpretation. Quite frankly that is what all facts are, merely an agreed upon interpretation by more than several people. And this is where the debate begins in earnest because interpretation is also subjective. You want the truth backed up by evidence, but that evidence has to be agreed upon by all to make evidence have any validity in your experiment. In Euclid's book about geometry, he defines certain things as agreed upon and has no proof and others that must be proved using those items which have no proof but are agreed upon. What you ask whether it is fact or truth is subjective and not one person can actually bring truth without subjectivity (or opinion) unless it is absolute truth in which there is no subjectivity within the evidence and no proof is needed. To assume one can is to fail before it was posted.

[Shabibilicious]

On 1/20/2019 at 11:12 AM, Theseus said:

I was in the Army then went into the Navy. My mos in the Army was 31mic. My mos in the Navy was supposed to be ASW/RSS until my accident. I was transferred aboard CV-64 for a while. While aboard CV-64, I met another former Army, he did nothing and wanted to nothing but time. He was a low life loser, like you, and I thought I would meet anyone lower than he was. I was carried off the CV-64 in a stretcher which led to my discharge. They thought heart attack but it was O-2 toxicity my lungs were healing from. I knew a Marine aboard that carrier which caused millions of dollars of damage when he put his M16 into several planes in the hangar bay because during a security drill he tripped over a chain which held the planes down. I have been in the Army so I know the people which make up its ranks. I can say what I say because I have been there done that. By the way, I was calvary when I was in. You need to quit because you so behind that I know snails that have looped you.

 

your theme song shabs (notice the sheep mentality it portrays that you follow)

 

I was an 82D (topographic surveyor).  Our mission was to establish "first order" survey control used for navigation, flight control and firing lines.  On the battlefield, first order control points were essential for helicopters to hover over for accurate positioning, remembering gps was in it's infancy in those days.  I served from 85' to early 90', ETSing a few months before Desert Storm.  I then joined a local engineering/surveying firm.  I was one of the fortunate ones who chose, qualified and excelled in an MOS and then turned that skill set into a living after serving my country honorably.  As a U.S. citizen and more particularly a vet, I am honored and indebted to you for your service and sacrifice to our nation.  You've definitely earned your right to an opinion......However, you're wrong about me.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

 

GO RV, then BV

[patrickgold]

On 1/9/2019 at 9:07 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

Okay.....so if what you say is true, why didn't Trump hold his party's feet to the fire and instead lost two complete years....only to suggest we're at "national security" stage when the Dems finally have a say after the midterms?  Who's really to blame for this impasse?....the common denominator in both scenarios is Trump, himself.  Again...FACT.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by patrickgold

[patrickgold]

No comment

[Markinsa]

On 1/9/2019 at 9:07 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

Okay.....so if what you say is true, why didn't Trump hold his party's feet to the fire and instead lost two complete years....only to suggest we're at "national security" stage when the Dems finally have a say after the midterms?  Who's really to blame for this impasse?....the common denominator in both scenarios is Trump, himself.  Again...FACT.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Even though the Republican's had a Majority in the Senate and the House,  they could not pass legislation through the Senate because the Senate doesn't use a simple majority, of 51 votes, but instead they need 60 votes, which would require 9-10 democrats to vote for the bill.  That is what Trump was telling everyone when he had Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval Office for that meeting.  They can change the Senate rules to a simple majority,  but for some reason Mitch McConnell didn't want to do that....

 

So back to fact, it was the Democrats that refused to pass the legislation, because 10 Democrats in the Senate didn't vote for it.  The reason Trump is holding out, is because he knows that if he gives in, the wall will NEVER be built, because Pelosi doesn't want Trump to get credit for a campaign promise.  Pretty small minded if you ask me...

 

.

 

[Shabibilicious]

On 1/26/2019 at 1:14 AM, Markinsa said:

 

Even though the Republican's had a Majority in the Senate and the House,  they could not pass legislation through the Senate because the Senate doesn't use a simple majority, of 51 votes, but instead they need 60 votes, which would require 9-10 democrats to vote for the bill.  That is what Trump was telling everyone when he had Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval Office for that meeting.  They can change the Senate rules to a simple majority,  but for some reason Mitch McConnell didn't want to do that....

 

So back to fact, it was the Democrats that refused to pass the legislation, because 10 Democrats in the Senate didn't vote for it.  The reason Trump is holding out, is because he knows that if he gives in, the wall will NEVER be built, because Pelosi doesn't want Trump to get credit for a campaign promise.  Pretty small minded if you ask me...

 

.

 

 

As I admitted earlier in this thread, I already know this.....I simply find it interesting that border security only rose to  "National Security" threat level after the Left took control of the House.....therefore, Trump is conflating an existing problem to curry favor with his base.  He wasn't nearly as focused on this issue when he had majority control of congress.

 

GO RV, then BV

[bostonangler]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 1:14 AM, Markinsa said:

They can change the Senate rules to a simple majority,  but for some reason Mitch McConnell didn't want to do that....

 

Because ***** McConnell know in the future that would work against him... But if you believe in a simple majority for the senate, why not for the American voter? Shouldn't we all live by the same rules?

 

B/A

[Markinsa]

2 hours ago, bostonangler said:

 

Because ***** McConnell know in the future that would work against him... But if you believe in a simple majority for the senate, why not for the American voter? Shouldn't we all live by the same rules?

 

B/A

If you are speaking of the electoral college, my answer would be no.  You should know the reason for the electoral college.  And I didn't  say I believed in a simple majority. I was pointing out the flawed talking point of the left.

[Markinsa]

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

As I admitted earlier in this thread, I already know this.....I simply find it interesting that border security only rose to  "National Security" threat level after the Left took control of the House.....therefore, Trump is conflating an existing problem to curry favor with his base.  He wasn't nearly as focused on this issue when he had majority control of congress.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

So would you prefer that Trump just pigeon hole the subject? How else is he going to stress the importance of this issue? What would you suggest?

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

So would you prefer that Trump just pigeon hole the subject? How else is he going to stress the importance of this issue? What would you suggest?

 

I'm just wondering why he waited 2 years to really amp up the fear factor on his #1 campaign promise.

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

What Amp up?

He is finally addressing the fears and concerns of the people that live in the southern states. We have been screaming "Build a wall" for years before Trump, and no one was listening.

I don't think he should have let them have their three weeks except to show they won't do anything. Anyone connected to the shutdown should be stockpiling food and water and money because if he shuts it down again it may go a lot longer. Be prepared.

 

Mt. President. DO YOUR JOB. Enforce the law Congress passed. 

 

[Markinsa]

5 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I'm just wondering why he waited 2 years to really amp up the fear factor on his #1 campaign promise.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Probably because the Republicans had control of the House at the time and he could only blame Shumer.. But now that he has both Pelosi and Schumer to blame it makes it even more of a "it's the Democrats fault" argument.

 

.

[nstoolman1]

Let us not forget the RINOS that during Obama's reign voted to defund ACA and then turn around when they could voted against defunding it. He never had a majority he could work with and if he did they were never Trumpers. 

[Shabibilicious]

On 1/28/2019 at 4:11 PM, Markinsa said:

 

Probably because the Republicans had control of the House at the time and he could only blame Shumer.. But now that he has both Pelosi and Schumer to blame it makes it even more of a "it's the Democrats fault" argument.

 

.

 

Basically Politics 101.  On this we agree.....Now we can officially move on, confident in the knowledge that Donald has morphed into a politician and is no longer the world's greatest businessman, self-professed of course.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Artitech]

Number 1 fact!!! The President loves, honors and believes in defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!! The DemoRats hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Period! Don’t believe me! That despicable miserable human being, beetow just admitted he wants major to do major changes to it, the Constitution! He is one of the newest darlings of the DemoRats!!  He is a fraud and a major subversive! There is no compromise or middle ground with these DemoRats!! If your a DemoRat there is no me and you! Period! 

[Theseus]

On 1/28/2019 at 8:20 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

As I admitted earlier in this thread, I already know this.....I simply find it interesting that border security only rose to  "National Security" threat level after the Left took control of the House.....therefore, Trump is conflating an existing problem to curry favor with his base.  He wasn't nearly as focused on this issue when he had majority control of congress.

 

GO RV, then BV

Before. Again with revisionist history.

 

The left took control of the House in January 2019, not in November 2018. The left did not take control until they were officially sworn in. They could not vote in 2018 if they were not already a sworn member of the house. But then again you knew that. Since you know all.

 

And it was a known National Security issue before 9-11 and was deemed even more so when Bush Jr. first implemented Homeland Security and second when the first wall legislation was passed. It only came to your purvue recently.

 

Just because it didn't enter your world after 9-11 doesn't mean it wasn't a national security issue. Trump is only finishing what past Presidents like Clinton and Reagan started and continued by Bush Jr. After 9-11 the border was talked about as one pathway into which terrorists could enter illegally to create cells in the USA. That brought the issue to the forefront. The flooding of illegals over the border where there are no walls and the composition of those groups leads to more security issues involved with criminal activity. HEre is what you fail to realize, we only know about the ones we catch not the ones that we don't know about. Sure we catch drugs at points of entry but how much actually does not come through the point of entry we might never know because there is little to no security there. The point of a wall is preventing people to step foot onto the soil. Surveillance technology such as cameras, drones and whatnot are reactionary technology, meaning that they have already stepped foot onto the soil. I am in all for 1000 feet deep ditches dug 1000 feet wide. But even then you could tunnel down 1010 feet to get around that. So dig a 1015 ditch? Anything manmade is not 100% but the idea is to reduce it to a manageable level than what it is now. Trump has never stated the wall would stop it 100% rather he has always stated it would reduce. The wall redirects the flow to choke points. Didn't your Army training teach you that? Duh! Guess not.

 

So it has been a national security issue long before the Clinton/Communist news network came onto the scene. So just quit with the leftist talking points they do you a disservice, case in point the 60-vote passing rule which you have been now told by two members of this thread but still after being told in your condescending way say you have heard of this. Which you may have but you want to promulgate your agenda here to which you say you aren't left but clearly it is a leftist agenda. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Theseus