Why does he pissoff allies and coddle enemies?

[gatomontes99]

US President Joe Biden has called Japan and India "xenophobic", grouping them together with Russia and China as countries that "don't want immigrants".

What a freaking more_on. This after he "denounced" the antisemitic riots at Columbia, UCLA and GW by saying Islamophobia is bad too. His priorities are all wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

 Because Europe and Canada were so overjoyed with the last president?

[Nationalist]

Brandon has only one priority. To stay in the Whitehouse. It's his handlers who are pulling his strings.

[Nationalist]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Because Europe and Canada were so overjoyed with the last president?

I'm Canadian and I liked the last president. In fact, most of the Canadians I know want him back in power.

You've lost Mike. Trump will return to set things right in the USA and Polievre will take power here and set things right.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

You've lost Mike. Trump will return to set things right in the USA and Polievre will take power here and set things right.

I love how you fast forward Beyond asking me if I want a foreign leader to be elected or not.  I really am not invested in this the way you are, and if you don't believe that you shouldn't talk to me.

As for who's going to set things right, of course I would want both of them to succeed at that. That. Why wouldn't I? It's strange to vote for your country or Ally to fail. 

Rush Limbaugh said publicly that he wanted Obama to fail. He was barely called out on that, certainly not by his fans. 

These are the people that call themselves patriots by the way.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Rush Limbaugh said publicly that he wanted Obama to fail. He was barely called out on that, certainly not by his fans. 

 

Yes, of course.  He wanted him to fail at implementing his left-wing policies. Context matters. 

Why would we want our political opponents to succeed?

Also, the left-wing howled about that for a long time; not sure what you mean by barely being called out for it. Here you are over a decade later, bringing it up. 

Edited May 4 by User

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I love how you fast forward Beyond asking me if I want a foreign leader to be elected or not.  I really am not invested in this the way you are, and if you don't believe that you shouldn't talk to me.

As for who's going to set things right, of course I would want both of them to succeed at that. That. Why wouldn't I? It's strange to vote for your country or Ally to fail. 

Rush Limbaugh said publicly that he wanted Obama to fail. He was barely called out on that, certainly not by his fans. 

These are the people that call themselves patriots by the way.

Why did he want Obama to fail?

Because he didn't want big government policies to work. Big government policies equal less freedom and fewer rights. He didn't want big government policies to work because people would be OK with giving up freedoms and rights.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, User said:

1. Yes, of course.  He wanted him to fail at implementing his left-wing policies. Context matters. 

2.  Why would we want our political opponents to succeed?

3. Also, the left-wing howled about that for a long time; not sure what you mean by barely being called out for it. Here you are over a decade later, bringing it up. 

1. 

 

2. Because success implies improvement of lives for our nation?

3. Exactly as you say, it was seen as a left-wing thing to oppose anti-patriotism. 

Your views support my point.  You would be happy for things to go downhill if it hurts your political opponents. That's not a patriotic viewpoint at all.

[User]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 

2. Because success implies improvement of lives for our nation?

3. Exactly as you say, it was seen as a left-wing thing to oppose anti-patriotism. 

Your views support my point.  You would be happy for things to go downhill if it hurts your political opponents. That's not a patriotic viewpoint at all.

1. Thank you for proving my point. 

2. No, success means implementing the left-wing policies we oppose and do not think improve our lives. 

3. So, you are now trying to redefine patriotism to mean wanting the policies your political opponents support to succeed? I don't think so. You don't get to redefine words like this. 

No, I was quite clear. Why you feel the need to play this dishonest game of twisting what I said regarding policies I do not support failing = "Things go downhill"
No, I oppose those policies and want them to fail because I don't think they make things better and are what will cause us to go downhill. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, User said:

1. Thank you for proving my point. 

2. No, success means implementing the left-wing policies we oppose and do not think improve our lives. 

3. So, you are now trying to redefine patriotism to mean wanting the policies your political opponents support to succeed? I don't think so. You don't get to redefine words like this. 

4. No, I was quite clear. Why you feel the need to play this dishonest game of twisting what I said regarding policies I do not support failing = "Things go downhill"

5. No, I oppose those policies and want them to fail because I don't think they make things better and are what will cause us to go downhill. 

1. I guess it is context.  But he simultaneously states that Obama's approach is flawed yet acknowledging the possibility of success by "wishing" failure.  Ok.
2. But... they might improve lives.  It's at least possible.
3. No - I mean success by political opponents sometimes means better lives for all.  Patriotism is not wanting your party to succeed but for the country to.  This is elementary.
4. That is exactly what failure means, the program fails to achieve goals which are ostensibly to improve things.
5. But if they succeed, my god... that could mean you were wrong?

Is there anywhere else for this conversation to go ?  I don't see it.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I love how you fast forward Beyond asking me if I want a foreign leader to be elected or not.  I really am not invested in this the way you are, and if you don't believe that you shouldn't talk to me.

As for who's going to set things right, of course I would want both of them to succeed at that. That. Why wouldn't I? It's strange to vote for your country or Ally to fail. 

Rush Limbaugh said publicly that he wanted Obama to fail. He was barely called out on that, certainly not by his fans. 

These are the people that call themselves patriots by the way.

Oh no you don't.

We both know that when the USA sneezes, Canada gets a cold. Likewise when they succeed, our economy goes with it. Not only that but, we've all read your comments and know you are rather concerned about who is POTUS.

You don't seem to like Polievre much either.

As for Limbaugh...turned out he was right about Obama.

Edited May 4 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why did he want Obama to fail?

Because he didn't want big government policies to work. Big government policies equal less freedom and fewer rights. He didn't want big government policies to work because people would be OK with giving up freedoms and rights.

Because your version of "freedom and rights" is more important than the success of the nation working. 🤮

Many CROOKS exercise their "freedom and rights" to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us and the nation.

That's why we HAVE LAWS. Duh

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Oh no you don't.

2. We both know that when the USA sneezes, Canada gets a cold. Likewise when they succeed, our economy goes with it. Not only that but, we've all read your comments and know you are rather concerned about who is POTUS.

3. You don't seem to like Polievre much either.

4. As for Limbaugh...turned out he was right about Obama.

1. I don't what ?  You're saying I'm lying about myself here ?  Did you see that part where I said you shouldn't talk to me if you think I'm a liar ?
2. I didn't say I wasn't concerned.  I do not take it personally the way you do.  I acknowledge that I have a dislike for Trump and I work to try to rise above that in my analysis.  I have also said good things about him here as I really dislike binary takes.
3. I have also said there's potential for him to do well, have expressed hope that he does well, etc.  Do you think Trudeau or Singh have potential to do well ?  Do you hope they succeed ?  
4. Obama was a non-factor in so many ways.  I would say he listened to the experts on the economy and it eventually went well for him, and I would say his foreign policy was inconsistent and weak.  He had the least experience of any president I can think of back to... He was a one-term Senator but let's see
Bush - State Governor
Clinton - State Governor
Bush Sr - VP and head of CIA
Reagan - State Governor
Carter - State Governor
Ford - Not elected but I think he was a Senator
Nixon - Senator, VP
Johnson - Senator, VP
JFK - Senator
Eisenhower - Military Leader in European Theatre, WW2
Truman - Senator, VP
Roosevelt - State Governor
Hoover ... ?  

Ok I went back 100 years just out of interest and Hoover is the one guy who is less qualified than Obama

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I guess it is context.  But he simultaneously states that Obama's approach is flawed yet acknowledging the possibility of success by "wishing" failure.  Ok.
2. But... they might improve lives.  It's at least possible.
3. No - I mean success by political opponents sometimes means better lives for all.  Patriotism is not wanting your party to succeed but for the country to.  This is elementary.
4. That is exactly what failure means, the program fails to achieve goals which are ostensibly to improve things.
5. But if they succeed, my god... that could mean you were wrong?

Is there anywhere else for this conversation to go ?  I don't see it.

1. Yes, he was saying he didn't want Obama to succeed in making government bigger... 
2. Yeah, it might improve some lives if Obama crashed a train killing thousands. Are we wrong to want him to fail?
3. Rush did not say he wanted the country to fail... you are extrapolating more than was said
4. No, failure means fail to implement. You are once again extrapolating more than was said in trying to say he opposed the good goals being achieved... 
5. So, moving forward, you will no longer express any opinions on this forum against any particular policies, because doing so means you are opposed to *GASP* my god, your being wrong?

Well, seeing as you have already been fabricating more things than were ever said to argue against, I imagine you can take this conversation a lot of places. 
 

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, User said:

1. Yes, he was saying he didn't want Obama to succeed in making government bigger... 
2. Yeah, it might improve some lives if Obama crashed a train killing thousands. Are we wrong to want him to fail?
3. Rush did not say he wanted the country to fail... you are extrapolating more than was said
4. No, failure means fail to implement. You are once again extrapolating more than was said in trying to say he opposed the good goals being achieved... 
5. So, moving forward, you will no longer express any opinions on this forum against any particular policies, because doing so means you are opposed to *GASP* my god, your being wrong?

Well, seeing as you have already been fabricating more things than were ever said to argue against, I imagine you can take this conversation a lot of places. 
 

 

1. No he never parsed it down to that level of detail. I listened to the whole thing. 

2. Did Obama propose this? 

3. Failed programs mean that they fail to reach their objectives, which are to help country. 

4. It's custom in politics to wish success for your opponent and be gracious upon the handover of power. This changed with Limbaugh's rabid style of populism. 

5. No, I enjoy being wrong because it means I've learned something. 

Fabricating? Like Obama's plan to crash trains into each other or whatever? 

Listen... I'm on here to discuss and learn from other posters not to win. Zero-sum politics is the problem, and you are clearly an adherent of that style. 

Do you think liberalism should be bad? Socialism? You're perfect for the new age.

If you don't think you have anything to learn from me, or think I'm 100% wrong, why would you ever discuss anything with me?

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't what ?  You're saying I'm lying about myself here ?  Did you see that part where I said you shouldn't talk to me if you think I'm a liar ?

In a word...yes.

[Fluffypants]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Because Europe and Canada were so overjoyed with the last president?

Of course they hated Trump he made them live up to their obligations.

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No he never parsed it down to that level of detail. I listened to the whole thing. 

2. Did Obama propose this? 

3. Failed programs mean that they fail to reach their objectives, which are to help country. 

4. It's custom in politics to wish success for your opponent and be gracious upon the handover of power. This changed with Limbaugh's rabid style of populism. 

5. No, I enjoy being wrong because it means I've learned something. 

Fabricating? Like Obama's plan to crash trains into each other or whatever? 

Listen... I'm on here to discuss and learn from other posters not to win. Zero-sum politics is the problem, and you are clearly an adherent of that style. 

Do you think liberalism should be bad? Socialism? You're perfect for the new age.

If you don't think you have anything to learn from me, or think I'm 100% wrong, why would you ever discuss anything with me?

1. "what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible from the banking business to the mortgage industry to the automobile business to the healthcare I do not want the government in charge of these things I don't want this to work"

2. No, it is your logic. 

3. You are the one saying it means failed programs. He did not say that. 

4. If you listened, he clearly pointed out that the left didn't do this with Bush, so why should he:

"why they didn't give Bush a chance in 2000 before he was inaugurated the search and destroy mission had begun..."

5. No, the point was that if you do express any opinions against things you don't agree with, it is an indication that you are doing so because you might be wrong... again, applying your bad argument to yourself that you tried to apply to me. 

You could have fooled me that you were on here to discuss and learn. Here I am giving you an alternative to what you are claiming Limbugh was saying and at every turn it appears you just want to argue to argue as you extrapolate more than he said to prove your point and you refuse to acknowledge anything I propose here regarding what he meant. (he has given interviews on this after he said it explaining it more too)

No, I think most leftist policies driven by liberalism are in fact bad and have caused outcomes I do not like or agree with in the past and I do not want folks on the left to succeed in implementing more of it. 

I could do this for entertainment, maybe to see what kind of arguments others post to hone in my own skill in debate and argument, maybe I do it for some friendship and camaraderie with like-minded folks on here... could be any number of reasons besides having to think I can learn something from you. Not that I would be opposed to that either. 

[NakedHunterBiden]

Actually, many countries don't want immigrants anymore. Is it xenophobic? I guess to a degree yes.

Coddling enemies? How so?

You don't think that islamophobia is a bad thing?

[WestCanMan]

"The White House says that Mr Biden meant no offence to either country."

Thank God he didn't say anything about Africa.