Mike Pence on how presidents should behave

[Charles]

"I know you are but what am I?" type arguments are usually only done by children, so I guess that answers CP's question. I am guessing you are about 15 by the way you act on tweb. That seems to be the age where you think you know everything and are smarter than "adults" - don't worry, you will grow out of it.

So I will grow up to make arguments like "horsepokey" or "That is just dumb"? And ignore it when people say stuff that does not fit into my narrative about them?

Should we get back on topic? Mike Pence set some rather high ideals for what a president should be and then went on to support someone who was quite far from the standard? Anything to say about that?

[Sparko]

So I will grow up to make arguments like "horsepokey" or "That is just dumb"? And ignore it when people say stuff that does not fit into my narrative about them?

Horsepucky. Not Pokey. sheesh. kids today.

Should we get back on topic? Mike Pence set some rather high ideals for what a president should be and then went on to support someone who was quite far from the standard? Anything to say about that?

Yes.

[Sparko]

chuck.jpg

[Cow Poke]

Talks like it when saying some of my best friends are Christians?

We always love "some of my best friends are" defenses!

Much easier to be critical behind a computer screen.

And when insisting I talk about some Christians and not all?

You might want to reconsider and go for something better than "horsepokey" or "That is just dumb" as an answer. Grown ups don't buy into that.

Balderdash!

Serious question... are you an adult?

Why is it nearly impossible for you to just answer a simple question? This is part of what makes you look so incredibly juvenile.

[Cow Poke]

Because...?

Because you said it? It's DUMB to come to a DUMB conclusion that "he has been called to support someone who does not live up to his ideals?" Did I mention that was dumb?

[Cow Poke]

"I know you are but what am I?" type arguments are usually only done by children, so I guess that answers CP's question. I am guessing you are about 15 by the way you act on tweb. That seems to be the age where you think you know everything and are smarter than "adults" - don't worry, you will grow out of it.

I was thinking 13 or 14... and some of that is the way he comes up with such goofy assumptions, and some of its that he seems incapable of just answering a question. He nearly went into hysterics when I asked him a simple question about abortion.

[Cow Poke]

So I will grow up to make arguments like "horsepokey" or "That is just dumb"?

Let's just hope you grow up - it hasn't happened yet for me.

And ignore it when people say stuff that does not fit into my narrative about them?

How bout just answering questions when asked without going into hysterics or theatrics?

Should we get back on topic? Mike Pence set some rather high ideals for what a president should be

He did. And, should he become president, I'm sure he'll do his best to live up to them.

and then went on to support someone who was quite far from the standard? Anything to say about that?

Already did, but I'll type a lot slower this time.... I believe he's "in the wings" for his opportunity to demonstrate what a good president acts like.

Now, back to how old you are? Why is it impossible to answer that?

[Charles]

He did. And, should he become president, I'm sure he'll do his best to live up to them.

If "his best to live up to them" follows along the line of what we have already seen from him, I see absolutely no reason to have any hope in case he becomes the president. Looking at what he said should be important ideally and the confronting it with what he supports in reality, there is no reason to assume he is not going to continue to sell out. If that was not his modus operandi he would not be in his current job. He must own his part of the responsibility and in doing so he appears rather unfit to show true leadership or give moral guidance.

Like I wrote it appears quite many of you are ready to really strech principles, ideas and ideals for things to add up in a situation where the president has been married twice, we continue to hear news about his relations to porn stars, tragedy's about family separation, his lies and all the stuff you did not really go into.

Along those lines: When I see what people write in this thread and in general when we discuss the Trump administration and its' policies I am often reminded about the wise words of Bob Dylan describing an unattractive attitude:

Big politician telling lies
Restaurant kitchen all full of flies
Don't make a bit of difference, don't see why it should
But it's all right, 'cause it's all good
It's all good
It's all good

I think that is what some of the posters in here seem to always conclude with regard to the Trump administration. It's all good. Pence may do the opposite of what he once claimed should be done, but it's all good. Children may never see their parents again, but they have good rooms, don't worry, it's all good. Sessions may misuse Romans 13 but it's all good. The porn stars... It's all good. Or at least it's not illegal. Not as bad as they say and don't worry, it's all good.

And when it comes to how old I am, you may have heard the following words before:

Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.

[Cow Poke]

And when it comes to how old I am, you may have heard the following words before:

So, again, just a juvenile kabuki dance.

[One Bad Pig]

I think that is what some of the posters in here seem to always conclude with regard to the Trump administration. It's all good. Pence may do the opposite of what he once claimed should be done, but it's all good. Children may never see their parents again, but they have good rooms, don't worry, it's all good. Sessions may misuse Romans 13 but it's all good. The porn stars... It's all good. Or at least it's not illegal. Not as bad as they say and don't worry, it's all good.

I think that, if you're going to call out people, name names rather than hiding behind a passive-aggressive "some posters". From my POV (and that of most of the posters on "my side" AFAICT), it is most certainly NOT "all good". Trump is morally repugnant - but the other viable choice was no less repugnant. As I've said before, you appear to live in an extremely black and white world, and expect people to choose white or nothing. This is not reality. Reality is a messy shade of gray, and choices are almost never between black and white. Not that you care, but I'd respect you more if you acknowledged that.

[Cow Poke]

I think that is what some of the posters in here seem to always conclude with regard to the Trump administration. It's all good.

Let me be VERY clear - there is a WHOLE LOT of "not good" about Trump, and, as I have said repeatedly, I voted 'for' him so that...

A) Hillary would not be POTUS
2) SCOTUS would not be Hillary's

Trump was the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

Clear enough?

[JimL]

I think that, if you're going to call out people, name names rather than hiding behind a passive-aggressive "some posters". From my POV (and that of most of the posters on "my side" AFAICT), it is most certainly NOT "all good". Trump is morally repugnant - but the other viable choice was no less repugnant. As I've said before, you appear to live in an extremely black and white world, and expect people to choose white or nothing. This is not reality. Reality is a messy shade of gray, and choices are almost never between black and white. Not that you care, but I'd respect you more if you acknowledged that.

So, you based your vote on the moral character of the candidates and you found Trump to be of a higher moral character than Clinton? Not that you'd care, but I'd respect you more if you were honest rather than a poor excuse maker.

[MaxVel]

So, you based your vote on the moral character of the candidates and you found Trump to be of a higher moral character than Clinton? Not that you'd care, but I'd respect you more if you were honest rather than a poor excuse maker.

Man, you have really poor reading comprehension. Not that you'd care, but I'd respect you more if you didn't read everything others post through the filter of 'That's what I expect them to say, so that's what they must be saying, even if the actual words they wrote say something different'.

[Leonhard]

Let me be VERY clear - there is a WHOLE LOT of "not good" about Trump, and, as I have said repeatedly, I voted 'for' him so that...

A) Hillary would not be POTUS
2) SCOTUS would not be Hillary's

Trump was the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

Clear enough?

Yeah but Cow Poke, Trump became the pick of the Republicans. That didn't happen by accident. I have a hard time buying the idea that the majority of conservatives wanted some other guy. I think most conservatives were excited by and wanted Trump.

[Charles]

I think that, if you're going to call out people, name names rather than hiding behind a passive-aggressive "some posters". From my POV (and that of most of the posters on "my side" AFAICT), it is most certainly NOT "all good". Trump is morally repugnant - but the other viable choice was no less repugnant. As I've said before, you appear to live in an extremely black and white world, and expect people to choose white or nothing. This is not reality. Reality is a messy shade of gray, and choices are almost never between black and white. Not that you care, but I'd respect you more if you acknowledged that.

This thread is about Pence's ideals. Did he acknowledge the grey reality before he himself had the chance to get more power? It is a bit too convenient to have double standards and it makes a rather bad case for claiming he would show true leadership and provides moral guidance if he became president.

I have no problem with grey reality, it is just that some poster are very reluctant to point to Trumps errors and lies. It seems they live in a black and white reality.