Is Trump a good president?

[Link]

He has his work cut out for him to be a good president.

[Drago]

Depends on if you think glass is good in a sandwich.

[kurai]

Official USA 45th Presidential Hat - White (https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/official-usa-45th-presidential-hat-white)

[Knight of Time]

Is Trump a good president? Hmm, let me give that question some serious thought. I am a Canadian, and as all Canadians know, Trump isn't their president.

Anyway, I'm gonna cut to the chase. I wouldn't really call Trump a good president, especially with all the controversial stuff he's done or is planning to do (such as the wall he wants around Mexico). The only way I'd think of him as an overall good president is if he seriously cut down on the controversial stuff (although, I'm starting to doubt that he will cut it down to size, if you guys know what I mean).

[kurai]

he does not want a wall around mexico

please do your research

[Zak]

he does not want a wall around mexico

please do your research

.

[Link]

he does not want a wall around mexico

please do your research

Correct.

[kainashi]

he does not want a wall around mexico

please do your researchhow does he think we'll keep them out then

[Knight of Time]

Sorry, I meant the USA/Mexico border (my geography still needs a little work x_x). But nonetheless, if that's one of the things he really wants, I hope he's prepared for a lot of backlash if it does happen.

[Zak]

how does he think we'll keep them out then

He has no problem with legal immigrants, in fact he encourages that.

[Drago]

He has no problem with legal immigrants, in fact he encourages that.
He encourages... legal activity?

We're celebrating that now bruh?

[Zak]

He encourages... legal activity?

We're celebrating that now bruh?

What are you even talking about "celebrating"?

[Drago]

You've just touted 'Trump encourages legal immigration' like it's some fantastic and noble thing that proves his decency. Are there really that few straws to grasp at in his defence?

[Zak]

Excuse me, but I didn't "tout" anything. I was simply refuting a false claim someone made, which is not at all the same as bringing it up out of the blue.

It's kind of ironic that you mentioned grasping at straws though, because I've seen a template of this conversation multiple times, sadly:

"Trump [or someone who works for him] said/did this."

"No they didn't, they actually did this" (which ends up being the complete opposite of the above claim, sometimes followed by a credible source link).

"... So what! Whatever! It's not like they deserve a pat on the back for it"


Yes, every single time, that kind of misquoting and gaslighting lmao. Very familiar with the tactic that's brought on when someone can't own what they said, that it's almost comical at this point.


But yeah, not that you didn't already know this, but refuting a claim someone made is not the same as "celebrating" anything.

Also this classic one.

"Men are rapists*
"That's messed up, I'm not and many I know aren't"
"Wow, you think you deserve a pat on the back for not raping, wow"

Yeah because that's totally what they say.

[Drago]

You're still failing to make a compelling point. :yes:

[Link]

You're still failing to make a compelling point. :yes:

That's Zak for you!

[Zak]

You're still failing to make a compelling point. :yes:

The entire purpose of my initial post was simply to refute something someone else said, and nothing more.

Maybe if reading comprehension didn't delude you and you actually bothered to read what I said instead of straight-up dismissing it, you'd have realized that by now. It's pretty clear that's all you're going to do anyway even if you do realize that, considering you spent three edits simply trying to figure out the best way to phrase a single dismissive sentence to see which one would sound the most badass. Lol


That's Zak for you!

And who exactly are you? Do I even know you?

[Link]

Do I need to know you? I used to be Heracross. Formerly known as Pokemaster2001. In any case, keep on being defensive, Zak. It's clearly doing you some good.

[Zak]

Do I need to know you? I used to be Heracross. Formerly known as Pokemaster2001. In any case, keep on being defensive, Zak. It's clearly doing you some good.

Oh. Have you found work yet?

And, at least I'm directly addressing things people say, rather than rudely ignoring and dismissing them. It would be appreciated if the same were done for me, and would make it easier to take you seriously.

[Link]

I need to find some work badly, man. Maybe I'll look at some jobs tomorrow.:P

Also, yes, you did answer many things.:)

[Drago]

Maybe if reading comprehension didn't delude you and you actually bothered to read what I said instead of straight-up dismissing it, you'd have realized that by now. It's pretty clear that's all you're going to do anyway even if you do realize that, considering you spent three edits simply trying to figure out the best way to phrase a single dismissive sentence to see which one would sound the most badass. Lol
72 Words
413 Characters
3 Sentences
1 Paragraph
11-12th Grade Reading Level
16 sec Reading Time
24 sec Speaking Time

Your text might contain writing issues - Check now (https://www.grammarly.com/report?alerts=W3siY2F0ZWdvcnkiOiJXb3JkaW5lc3MiLCJn cm91cCI6IlN0eWxlIiwiY291bnQiOjF9LHsiY2F0ZWdvcnkiOi JXb3JkQ2hvaWNlIiwiZ3JvdXAiOiJFbmhhbmNlbWVudCIsImNv dW50IjoyfV0%3D&affiliateNetwork=ho&aff_sub=wccheck&aff_id=1122&source=wc&affiliateID=1122&offer_id=237&utm_content=wc)

[Zak]

Aaand this is what they do when they hit a wall. Only continuing to prove my point further.

[kurai]

you probably meant to use the word elude instead of delude in that post though

[Drago]

You can still click on the link to discover those issues. :yes:

[kurai]

but i would suggest it is possible to argue that trump has said or done some Bad Things within some specific framework of good and bad, without having to misquote or make stuff up

[Zak]

This thread serves as a great textbook example of how liberals behave when they have no argument (or don't know of a valid one), and their tendency to project their shortcomings on to others. It's really quite sad and pathetic but hey, this is what we've come to.

The lengths they'll go to find a problem and make a story out of something is remarkable:

https://i.redd.it/iayt3wp68bmz.png

So 10 year olds are too young to volunteer to mow a lawn, but mature enough to undergo sex change treatment. Ooooookay.

[kurai]

can i get a citation on steven greenhouse's opinion on child sex change access

[Drago]

So 10 year olds are too young to volunteer to mow a lawn, but mature enough to undergo sex change treatment. Ooooookay.
I'm fascinated by your agenda on genders. Tell me more. :love2: :love2: :love2:

[shazza]

Yeah, but, is Trump a good president?

[kurai]

no

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

I'm not familiar with the expression 'to have one's work cut out for one to be something'.

[MToolen]

The phrase is usually just 'having his work cut out for him;' it usually means the job or role is hard and/or has difficult alerts as a normal part of the job. In Trump's case, slightly over half the country did not vote for him. He has not held political office before, and media outlets (sometimes justified) tend to report on his missteps and inexperience.

Personally, I'm not sure that Trump, on his own, can be a good president. Luckily, he's not on his own, but he often will do or say things without running it by advisors. That's his right to do so, but I would say that the Trump staying on-script is much more of a good president than the Trump who improvises to pander to an interviewer or crowd.

Okay, one more gripe and I'm done. The man never says he's wrong. What's worse, he will go down the rabbit hole of blocking or ad-hominem attacking those who tell him he is wrong. This is not presidential behavior in my opinion.

[shazza]

no

Okay, thanks.

Why not?

[kurai]

thanks for asking

let's break down which particular areas the presidency is typically responsible for

1) pulpit power & public relations
2) chief executive of the federal bureaucracy
3) diplomatic figurehead
4) policy development, negotiation and coordination
5) preservation of the constitution and laws
6) commander in chief

now we can go through these step by step

1) pulpit power & public relations:

as a presidency marred from the beginning by the Russia Controversy, the president's ability to direct the public sentiment has been minimized all throughout. however, the russia issue itself remains disputable, so it does not by definition make him a bad president unless it is resolved in the negative (and then he will be considered historically bad). aside from this, trump's tendency to use social media has lessened the prestige of the office and has provided many different gaffes. we might also point to the charlottesville remarks as a particularly ineffective PR situation which continutes to draw criticism - certainly he has not made efforts to use the pulpit to overcome divisiveness.

however, all of these are currently Partisan Opinions. many members of the public think that trump has handled all these issues in a perfectly acceptable manner so it does not inherently make him a bad president to take a public relations approach that is widely criticized. but it may make him an ineffective president if he is unable to bring others on to his side.

2) chief executive of the federal bureaucracy:

it would appear that trump has appointed a number of cabinet-level officials to oversee departments after they had led a career of attempting to eliminate and undermine those departments. trump also appears to lead the federal executive through oaths of personal fealty but this has been ineffective with weeks/months of internal leaks.

these are also Partisan Opinions. after campaigning against the federal bureaucracy it is reasonable to expect him to undermine it, and he can choose whichever management style he prefers. results must be examined to determine whether or not he is good or bad in this respect.

3) diplomatic figurehead:

trump appears to intentionally antagonize long-time allies of the united states in order to negotiate his trade/economic/military goals.

another Partisan Opinion. trump campaigned on this and at present it would be considered either good or bad on a mostly partisan basis.

4) policy development, negotiation and coordination:

trump has achieved no major legislative goals and has been constantly undermined by a congress that is led by his own party. it would appear that his inexperience in policy development and political dealmaking has left him entirely ineffective in this respect.

although he has missed the traditional 100 day window for unified legislative/executive success, there is still time for successes on health care/tax reform/the wall/trade issues. perhaps the failures so far are part of a greater strategy for success. to be determined.

5) preservation of the constitution and laws:

this is the main issue where i have the greatest concern. the main three controversies in this area are the garland/gorsuch swap, the emoluments issue and the pardoning of arpaio. garland/gorsuch is not really a big deal even if it has significant real world consequences and can be attributed to congress anyway, i don't think it reflects badly on trump to have not gone out of his way to be generous on this issue in an unprecedented way. the emoluments issue is pretty clear to anyone that considers the historical applications of this charge, but it will not be addressed without congressional action so it has no bearing on whether or not he is a good or bad president at the moment.

but arpaio's pardon is a morally repugnant and constitutionally problematic issue. arpaio was a law enforcement official who defied a court order for him to stop unlawfully detaining people - he actually did a lot more than this, but this is the subject of the pardon. in the media, this act appears portrayed as a PR move, or perhaps a favour to a personal friend and political ally. but it is more than this - it is a fresh override of constitutional checks and balances. essentially, the executive branch under trump has granted itself the ability to override the normal course of judicial proceedings. civil and criminal contempt of court are now placed under the review of the presidency via the pardon power with respect to a government official deliberately violating a court order in order to violate individual constitutional rights.

this is a seizure of executive power reminiscent of andrew jackson's apocryphal "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it", and on a partisan basis, neither party's supporters are in favour of the undermining of checks and balances and the growth of executive power.

6) commander in chief:

it would appear that trump's overall military strategy is rhetorical. north korea is not being handled in its ever-increasing desperation beyond threats of destruction and personal taunts on twitter. he is also threatening venezuela for... some reason. there have also been FOUR naval accidents in 2017. he has successfully (?) taken new actions in yemen/syria/afghanistan.

trump certainly campaigned on an 'america first' platform, but i don't think his supporters thought that meant south america. it remains to be seen if trump is continuing the misguided presidential tradition of interfering in the middle east. maybe the naval issues aren't directly attributable to him, but he remains CIC during them. i don't think calling a belligerent leader 'rocket man' is befitting his office or the situation. overall, i would say he is Not Great on this issue, setting military action as a non-partisan issue.

so on four issues i rank it as inconclusive or partisan, one issue is strongly negative, one issue is weakly negative. overall, he has not accomplished enough to be considered Good, but has taken a number of actions (and gaffes) that qualify him as Bad.

(an interesting thing is that in spite of trump's persona as an outsider, the last republican president was also negatively assessed on the same two issues.)

[ChobiChibi]

Last night I went to see the Addam's Family musical (it was excellent) and had to endure the American tourists and Brexit leave voters talking about Trump. Not once did I hear a convincing reason from the guy as to why he voted Trump. He wanted "change". He also argued that Trump is doing the right thing about North Korea. How is making threats on Twitter a responsible way of dealing with the threat of Nuclear war?! Jeez...

[shazza]

thanks for asking

let's break down which particular areas the presidency is typically responsible for

1) pulpit power & public relations
2) chief executive of the federal bureaucracy
3) diplomatic figurehead
4) policy development, negotiation and coordination
5) preservation of the constitution and laws
6) commander in chief

now we can go through these step by step

1) pulpit power & public relations:

as a presidency marred from the beginning by the Russia Controversy, the president's ability to direct the public sentiment has been minimized all throughout. however, the russia issue itself remains disputable, so it does not by definition make him a bad president unless it is resolved in the negative (and then he will be considered historically bad). aside from this, trump's tendency to use social media has lessened the prestige of the office and has provided many different gaffes. we might also point to the charlottesville remarks as a particularly ineffective PR situation which continutes to draw criticism - certainly he has not made efforts to use the pulpit to overcome divisiveness.

however, all of these are currently Partisan Opinions. many members of the public think that trump has handled all these issues in a perfectly acceptable manner so it does not inherently make him a bad president to take a public relations approach that is widely criticized. but it may make him an ineffective president if he is unable to bring others on to his side.

2) chief executive of the federal bureaucracy:

it would appear that trump has appointed a number of cabinet-level officials to oversee departments after they had led a career of attempting to eliminate and undermine those departments. trump also appears to lead the federal executive through oaths of personal fealty but this has been ineffective with weeks/months of internal leaks.

these are also Partisan Opinions. after campaigning against the federal bureaucracy it is reasonable to expect him to undermine it, and he can choose whichever management style he prefers. results must be examined to determine whether or not he is good or bad in this respect.

3) diplomatic figurehead:

trump appears to intentionally antagonize long-time allies of the united states in order to negotiate his trade/economic/military goals.

another Partisan Opinion. trump campaigned on this and at present it would be considered either good or bad on a mostly partisan basis.

4) policy development, negotiation and coordination:

trump has achieved no major legislative goals and has been constantly undermined by a congress that is led by his own party. it would appear that his inexperience in policy development and political dealmaking has left him entirely ineffective in this respect.

although he has missed the traditional 100 day window for unified legislative/executive success, there is still time for successes on health care/tax reform/the wall/trade issues. perhaps the failures so far are part of a greater strategy for success. to be determined.

5) preservation of the constitution and laws:

this is the main issue where i have the greatest concern. the main three controversies in this area are the garland/gorsuch swap, the emoluments issue and the pardoning of arpaio. garland/gorsuch is not really a big deal even if it has significant real world consequences and can be attributed to congress anyway, i don't think it reflects badly on trump to have not gone out of his way to be generous on this issue in an unprecedented way. the emoluments issue is pretty clear to anyone that considers the historical applications of this charge, but it will not be addressed without congressional action so it has no bearing on whether or not he is a good or bad president at the moment.

but arpaio's pardon is a morally repugnant and constitutionally problematic issue. arpaio was a law enforcement official who defied a court order for him to stop unlawfully detaining people - he actually did a lot more than this, but this is the subject of the pardon. in the media, this act appears portrayed as a PR move, or perhaps a favour to a personal friend and political ally. but it is more than this - it is a fresh override of constitutional checks and balances. essentially, the executive branch under trump has granted itself the ability to override the normal course of judicial proceedings. civil and criminal contempt of court are now placed under the review of the presidency via the pardon power with respect to a government official deliberately violating a court order in order to violate individual constitutional rights.

this is a seizure of executive power reminiscent of andrew jackson's apocryphal "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it", and on a partisan basis, neither party's supporters are in favour of the undermining of checks and balances and the growth of executive power.

6) commander in chief:

it would appear that trump's overall military strategy is rhetorical. north korea is not being handled in its ever-increasing desperation beyond threats of destruction and personal taunts on twitter. he is also threatening venezuela for... some reason. there have also been FOUR naval accidents in 2017. he has successfully (?) taken new actions in yemen/syria/afghanistan.

trump certainly campaigned on an 'america first' platform, but i don't think his supporters thought that meant south america. it remains to be seen if trump is continuing the misguided presidential tradition of interfering in the middle east. maybe the naval issues aren't directly attributable to him, but he remains CIC during them. i don't think calling a belligerent leader 'rocket man' is befitting his office or the situation. overall, i would say he is Not Great on this issue, setting military action as a non-partisan issue.

so on four issues i rank it as inconclusive or partisan, one issue is strongly negative, one issue is weakly negative. overall, he has not accomplished enough to be considered Good, but has taken a number of actions (and gaffes) that qualify him as Bad.

(an interesting thing is that in spite of trump's persona as an outsider, the last republican president was also negatively assessed on the same two issues.)

Okay, thanks.

[kurai]

fresh problems this week in the "pulpit power & public relations" and "policy development, negotiation and coordination" categories

- after campaigning and rallying for luther strange, his preferred candidate fails to win the alabama republican senate primary. this is significant for two reasons: now no member of the legislature needs to fear reprisal from trump as sitting president, as he is unable to provide winning support even in a state that he won 62-34; if elected, moore is supposed to provide a thoroughly obstructionist viewpoint that has already declared itself in opposition to the senate majority leader (who also no longer has the ability to threaten campaign funding reprisal), which harms the rest of the president's legislative agenda. (he also deleted his tweets in support of the losing candidate.)

- health care reform fails again. trump appears to believe that removing the filibuster in the senate is the only possible deal to be made.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

After the president's first foreign trip, some friends of mine were laughing at the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe who, according to the news, said that he 'completely trusts Trump'. As this forum is full of people who love Japan, I can sense the contradiction. Is Abe's remark only due to the Japanese culture of politeness and the fact that Japan and the USA are top allies in far east? 'The rocketman' has now shot two missiles through the skies of Sinnoh. Oh, I mean Hokkaido.

[Magmar]

fresh problems this week in the "pulpit power & public relations" and "policy development, negotiation and coordination" categories

- after campaigning and rallying for luther strange, his preferred candidate fails to win the alabama republican senate primary. this is significant for two reasons: now no member of the legislature needs to fear reprisal from trump as sitting president, as he is unable to provide winning support even in a state that he won 62-34; if elected, moore is supposed to provide a thoroughly obstructionist viewpoint that has already declared itself in opposition to the senate majority leader (who also no longer has the ability to threaten campaign funding reprisal), which harms the rest of the president's legislative agenda. (he also deleted his tweets in support of the losing candidate.)

- health care reform fails again. trump appears to believe that removing the filibuster in the senate is the only possible deal to be made.

I do not get political with people I don't know--sorry TPM--but FWIW, I was in Alabama last week. There were illuminated billboards all over Birmingham like at standing level saying "Support (whoever it was), Donald Trump Endorses Him!" Outside of the deep South, I don't think those billboards would have survived.

[shazza]

Is he good yet?

[kurai]

no

[shazza]

no

Okay, thanks.

[firepokemon]

Is Clinton better?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

uh

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
no

[kurai]

i would guess that is something to do with the fact that, not being elected president, she does not have any of the duties or powers of the office of the president

[firepokemon]

Yes and she will not get the fuck over it. Nor will her delusional fans.

[kurai]

i'm not sure why it would matter what some entitled old lady thinks or how that has any bearing on the question at hand

[Zak]

I think the question he meant was 'would Clinton have been better'

still no

[shazza]

A good president? Probably not.

Better than Trump? Yes.

[shazza]

Is he good yet?

[Magmar]

not even a little bit

[kurai]

well, let's look at what has happened using the framework I laid out on page one in September 2017, outlining whether trump is A Good President without a particular partisan bias.

1) pulpit power & public relations, downward trend:
- newly revealed past controversies cause even more damage to the office as the chaos of the day to day continues to make it difficult for the president to stay on topic for more than 72 hours
- mueller investigation continues to gather speed

2) chief executive of the federal bureaucracy, downward trend:
- half of the cabinet is now under scrutiny for a wide variety of legal and ethical issues, most recently covering up for a wife beater and buying an expensive table

3) diplomatic figurehead, downward trend:
- 'trade wars are good and easy to win'

4) policy development, negotiation and coordination, neutral trend:
- he had one pretty big success on tax cuts whether or not you think that is Good Policy.
- this trend has to remain at least neutral until tomorrow when the focus on his DACA/immigration proposal failures continues, and everyone forgets about his gun control proposal failures...

5) preservation of the constitution and laws, severely downward trend:
- even for Trump, even within the last week, this issue has become more concerning than ever with kushner/ivanka scandals alongside contemplating 'president-for-life'

6) commander in chief, upward trend:
- the ISIS efforts seem to be a success, although it is not clear how much of this is trump himself.
- maybe making fun of rocket man was a good strategy.

overall not a positive trend in his presidency since 6 months ago

[Zak]

Loving this guy right now.

The Palestinian-sympathizer tears salt has been delicious

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

I kinda understand you Zak, the 19th century-originated nationalism and Zionism are heavy things. This may go too deep to the ancient times, but I have read about the way God promised the land for Abraham, how Jacob's tribe left for Egypt for hunger, and how Moses left Egypt to take the Promised Land back. Across history, the Jews have been exiled from their land again and again.

However, Trump is doing this so fast. Is Jerusalem even a Jewish city originally? When Joshua came back, other nations had made shelter there.

[Mewfour]

Having called neo-nazis "Very fine people" should immediately produce a "no" response in any sane person.

I mean, how do you fuck that up? It's like fucking up answering 1 plus 1. It's 2, you know it's two, everyone and their dog knows it 2, it is quite possibly the easiest thing to know absolutley, a response that can be rattled off in your sleep.

And yet here America is, with a president that calls neo Nazis "very fine people."

So glad I'm Canadian. Yes, Justin says a lot of stupid shit on a near daily basis, but at least it's nowhere near "trade wars are easy to win" levels of absolute fucktardedness.

This is what happens when you don't vote.

[Zak]

I kinda understand you Zak, the 19th century-originated nationalism and Zionism are heavy things. This may go too deep to the ancient times, but I have read about the way God promised the land for Abraham, how Jacob's tribe left for Egypt for hunger, and how Moses left Egypt to take the Promised Land back. Across history, the Jews have been exiled from their land again and again.

However, Trump is doing this so fast. Is Jerusalem even a Jewish city originally? When Joshua came back, other nations had made shelter there.

This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Just putting Hamas in their place.

[Zak]

Having called neo-nazis "Very fine people" should immediately produce a "no" response in any sane person.

I mean, how do you fuck that up? It's like fucking up answering 1 plus 1. It's 2, you know it's two, everyone and their dog knows it 2, it is quite possibly the easiest thing to know absolutley, a response that can be rattled off in your sleep.

And yet here America is, with a president that calls neo Nazis "very fine people."

So glad I'm Canadian. Yes, Justin says a lot of stupid shit on a near daily basis, but at least it's nowhere near "trade wars are easy to win" levels of absolute fucktardedness.

This is what happens when you don't vote.

Lolwhat

He never said that about people who actually self-identify as Neo Nazis and proudly sport swastika flags.

Unfortunately, modern-day leftists have grossly redefined the word to mean "anyone that strongly disagrees with me" and uses that as a way to make strawman points. He may have said that about people who fall into that category.

This is what it's come to.

http://i.magaimg.net/img/3aw9.jpg

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

I bet you knew this already, but svastika's been stained by Hitler.

This discussion is hilarious to follow. It always gives me good laughs when I see Trump on television. His hand gestures are catchy.

[shazza]

I hope you can one day find inner peace and forgiveness, Zak.

[Zak]

Inner peace? I just said I was happy and ecstatic. :)

In fact I bumped this thread just to share that. Did you mean to say "I hope you find political correctness"?

In fact, gotta love the irony of someone using the "Nazi" argument for the millionth time right after he does Jews a favor.

But... thanks for the good wishes I guess!

[Zak]

Speaking of which, Shannon... Are you still by any chance in touch with Steelix, Sniper, or Fireblast? Out of curiosity would you happen to know what their take is on the Jerusalem embassy thing?

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

BTW, neo-nazis don't even use svastikas, necessarily.

2hu7yw2MnGQ

[Drago]

He never said that about people who actually self-identify as Neo Nazis and proudly sport swastika flags.
No, just the people who side with them. :)

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Hehe, The Simpsons predicted Trump's rise to power, and Naruto predicted the next Emperor of Japan. Naruhito.

[Zak]

No, just the people who side with them. :)

Like who though? What "very fine person" directly backed or sided with actual Neo Nazis or KKK members?

Also, speaking of backing violent hate groups... looks like we've reached the level of sympathizing with MS-13 gang members. Won't someone think of these people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13)? We don't wanna hurt their feelings and call them animals... oh wait


It is very telling how many tears are being shed for these people over that comment.

[kurai]

you're spending a lot of time thinking about other people's tears

thank you for your sensitivity

[Zak]

You're welcome

[Zak]

http://wjla.com/news/local/police-ms-13-members-beat-teen-prostitute-with-bat-28-times-indent-portion-of-her-body

If your priority of concern is whether these people are being called "animals" then you seriously need to re-evaluate

[kurai]

President Donald Trump canceled his historic nuclear summit with Kim Jong Un on Thursday, accusing North Korea of "tremendous anger and open hostility."

The meeting, which would have marked the first face-to-face encounter between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader, was set for June 12 in Singapore.

"Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting," Trump wrote in a letter to Kim, which was released Thursday morning. The president dictated every word of the letter himself, a senior White House official told reporters.

The senior White House official also said that North Korea had suspended direct communication with the U.S. over the past week.

fake accomplishments

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

At least the guy is flexible because his opinions change every week :P

[Zak]

I knew they were dumb but not this dumb... lol criminal gangs are apparently a race now

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/23/mike-huckabee-pelosi-tweet-ms-13-not-a-race/

[Oslo]

Uh, regardless of whether Huckabee's tweet was racist, it's pretty clear that nobody referenced in that article is suggesting that criminal gangs are a race. :|

[kurai]

while mr. huckabee has chosen to violate someone's copyright by reposting an image without attribution (!), this picture appears to depict some people of no particular conviction history but with a certain common denominator

[Zak]

So just now you're starting to care about 'reposting images' which people on the internet have been doing since the beginning of social media?

And their common denominator is being associated with this gang, regardless of conviction history.

You're grasping at straws dude, but any particular reason you seem to have compassion for this gang who rapes, murders, and mutilates children for sport - enough to go out of your way with these mental gymnastics? You seem very determined to paint them as 'victims' which is a bit disturbing.

[Zak]

Uh, regardless of whether Huckabee's tweet was racist, it's pretty clear that nobody referenced in that article is suggesting that criminal gangs are a race. :|

If you're crying racism over that tweet (which is already ridiculous in itself) then they're practically saying that since they should have no other logical reason to be upset over it, considering what it's about.

But hey, as fuck up as it is that they're looking the other way and sympathizing with them, I'm actually kind of glad they continue to embarrass themselves and run their party into the ground and pretty much solidify another four years of this guy.

[kurai]

the practice of reposting images is rather notable because it is the only actually questionable part of the whole situation and serves to undermine his own counter-argument

their common denominator is being representative of a latino gang, but since he is reposting someone else's image, who knows if any of these unidentified people from this unattributed picture are actual gang members? maybe this is from a film or television show, who could say? all we know is they are latino and apparently supposed to be looking frightening, which is what seems to be the trouble here

but the whole MS-13 thing is a misdirect anyway since it's a criminal organization founded in the united states: the focus on their organization in particular is a manipulative attempt to integrate the immigration messaging with a foundation of law and order along very specific racial and cultural grounds