paying attention to debates but ignoring Trump

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner
Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner

A la Trump, you have to clarify what you meant by your inartful (actually incorrect) implication of what I said. And then, like Trump and most other politicians, you put a negative spin, pontification, on my pointing out how you were wrong but, like Trump, not intentionally--how, you told a Trump-like "lie.

Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a Trump-like, sloppy use of diction? What do you mean by political history? You mean actually being an elected politician? And that only previously elected politicians can be viable candidates? The Constitution does not say that. Trump was absolutely constitutionally viable as a candidate.

And we all have political histories if we vote or discuss politics or contribute to political campaigns. All the candidates, including the ones I disagree with, were "viable." Perhaps, rather than a legal, constitutional view of viability, you prefer the Progressive view of rule by "experts," expertise being defined by Progressives? That is, in my opinion, an elitist, totalitarian view, but you may think it is a perfectly viable one.

For that matter, Trump had actual executive experience that was more so than most of the other candidates. And he had shown the ability to succeed, even to rise from and correct failure and error. And he was, as demonstrated in the debates, tenacious, fearless, insightful, and, for all your notion of what he didn't have, he did not have the anti-American political baggage of the Progressives. Of course, by "anti-American," I mean something that is probably different than what you would mean, but your question was how did I determine he was viable, not how you did you determine that he wasn't. If that is what you determined.