So let me get this straight. You clearly dislike pretty much everything about him and everything he does as President, and yet he's just an idiot puppet to the elite pro con artists who are conning him into doing that they want done?

So why are you so mad at Trump then if he's a victim in this situation? The elites just keep ruining his life. Where's the support for this survivor?

I mean, why would I take you seriously when your name is literally derivative of one of three "dark" personality traits and means politically unscrupulous? That and you're clearly the type to gloss things over, which I'll prove in just a moment.

But first, the act of assuming my mother isn't a whore? Because it's about context. I get that you're here to be two-faced (not my words, it's simply a verified synonym of your name), but context is pretty important when someone says I assume some are good people. Just based on that fact that he assumes some are good throws a wrench in your analogy, since he's assuming a positive and not simply assuming the lack of a negative. But hey, your name continues to paint a picture of just what exactly you're here to do.

Back to the glossing over things: I never said you were racist. I actually complimented how you were addressing policy instead of just calling him racist. It's gotta be embarrassing when you call someone out for not reading your posts, when that's exactly what you did. And you also assume he wouldn't want someone with more experience in his cabinet, but that's just your bias showing. You don't want to give him any credit, you just want to call him stupid and dumb and not have anyone retaliate.

Less about what you said and more about challenging the moral posturing that goes into effect again Trump's immigration policies. Want a more direct rebuttle? Well, you're aware of when and why those laws went into effect, right? It was a Clinton era law that was set up to stop child trafficking, which was a huge problem at the time. It's also still been upheld throughout Clinton's tenure, as well as Bush's and Obama's. The reason it's an issue now is two-fold: there are record numbers of illegal crossings, so there would obviously be a record number of separations. It sucks, but child trafficking is a terrifying thing. The other reason is because the media is trying to earn their next dollar off of the Trump bump, so they incite people with their ragebait.

Insults aren't a viable substitution for an argument, but I suppose it does help you live up to your conniving name (another verifiable synonym). I didn't make an attempt to "show how you are wrong", because you didn't present anything to prove or disprove. You made a vague blanket statement and called Trump dumb.

Again, you're not making a point. You're just calling him an idiot.

Which is why I said some sources show a positive effect and some show a negative effect, making it something that seems more nuanced than you would probably care to admit.

That's a whole lot of accusations coming from someone with such an insidious name (verifiable synonym). I do enjoy how you didn't deny getting information from Maddow, too. Instead you just double down on the "Trump is dumb" arguments and make the hypocritical claim that I don't know anything just because I don't immediately agree with someone who would call out Trump for being opportunistic when their username is quite literally a synonym for opportunistic. 

It's called a write-in, bub. You can't seriously expect me to take someone as deceitful, dishonest, and treacherous (all verifiable synonyms) as you seriously when you can't even formulate the idea in your head that someone liked Bernie so much they opted to write-in his name? Get a clue, dude, the only reason there is derangement syndrome is because people hear his name and immediately think "gotta shit on this guy, even if I don't have a point to make".

Lol, now we are comparing someone name to how you take them seriously or not.  Oh well, I guess we have reach that point in this discussion.  let's get back on topic in this thread and we can take this one to another one if you want as I can argue your points all day long but it would then mean another 3 hundred word post.

You are free to not trust others on what they say and assume about that ofcourse,i do think it is important to be critical on everything without fearing those assumptions.

If evaberserk tells us she/he is center while she/he never said something that could be considered rightsided i find it just more logical to just believe that till there is other info aviable that strongly says otherwise and in my opinion such info is currently nonexistent.

It's a pretty important aspect to keep in mind when it pertains to the type of discussion. I don't believe you're here in good faith, just like it would be fair to assume a guy named XboxSux is probably not participating in Xbox discussion in good faith. If you have a hard time understanding that... Well, that's on you.

And what point? The one where you have a hard time contesting the fact that over half of your arguments have been insults rather than positions, or the one where you realize you named yourself after the personality trait of politicians that literally everyone here can agree is the problem with politicians?

Ahh you got me.  I guess you know me so well based on a username I picked.  Well, I cannot defeat your perfect logic on this front.  Just so you know, if you see Machiavellian on any other websites forums there is a good chance it's me as I use it on everyone I have registered.  With that said, your opinion is pretty much baseless.  Who really cares what you believe based on a username but you are more than welcome to believe it.

The point is that this thread really isn't about Trump so, while I do enjoy arguing about the idiot, I really did not feel I need another 300 word post to continue to discuss about him in this topic.  I am more than happy to continue this discussion in that general political thread, then I can really test exactly how much research you have done because so far it appears to be very empty.  I am more than happy to test how much you actually have been paying attention to current events if you so chose to do so.

I never said you had to be at an extreme, all I said was that being on the fence or "in the middle" on issues is not a definitive stance. You can be on the fence on things but ultimately, once you hear both sides of the argument, you have to come to your own conclusion on who/what you believe is right and then compromise from there IF you feel it's an issue worth compromising on. You can't be on the fence your whole life.

@bolded: Did you not understand what I wrote?? That's what those social programs do! That's us reaching out to the man before he's in that condition, so he has options. Not everyone is born with a roof over their heads, food on the table, and good health. And the best part is that these programs have been proven to work.

I honestly think you need to take a step back and look at the facts, apart from everyone else, and come to your own conclusion on what you believe. It seems you don't have your political beliefs all ironed out yet and that's fine but you at least need to have some idea on where you stand and where you draw the line. Maybe you'll end up admitting to yourself that maybe you're more conservative/liberal than you previously thought.

I've literally said this exact thing in the past 2 or 3 posts towards you...  

And again:

>Social programs don't tend to spend very much on housing.  A lot of it goes towards things like food. 

>California isn't leading in social programs per capita.  They are getting more than any other state, but they also have 40 million people to share it with.  They are not even in the top 10 for most spent per capita.