"No I don't! I think we should continue to support Ukraine. I think many of his statements

Posted by TW on May 19, 2025, 9:14 am, in reply to "Wallowing in the mire?"

concerning Russia and Ukraine have been ludicrous. I think he and DOGE have been ham-handed about the cuts. I think accepting a Boeing 747 from Qatar would be a terrible choice. I think about half the time he opens his mouth, he says something stupid. I think the tariffs are bad policy as well.

Woe is us! Both parties seem to be populated with far too many loser politicians."

I'm not saying that he doesn't only disagree with half of dt's positions, but he didn't actually SAY that. Just said that half of what he SAYS is STUPID. That doesn't mean that the other half is "smart", just that it's not stupid. I suppose dt might not always say stupid things, but I hear very little that I'd consider "smart" and quite a bit that I also think is STUPID, because it absolutely is stupid.

dt DOES have a "choice" in whether to accept or refuse the plane. Not a LEGAL choice, but obviously, he can do whatever he decides to do and THEN face the legal consequences. Just as all of us have a choice to obey laws or not. Our choices decide our future if we break the law in them. If he accepts the plane, he may very well face some serious opposition from both sides and some support by idiots who don't think beyond their noses as to the precedent it would set for future presidents. I don't think that ANYONE is okay with bribing our president. Some are just dumb enough to think there would be NO strings attached. THAT is ludicrous on its face.

I'd GUESS that he doesn't oppose a heavier focus on border security, but may very well disagree with HOW it's being done without due process for those being deported.

He has repeatedly said that he believes that our government is TOO BIG and TOO WASTEFUL, and really, who doesn't even if only certain segments of it? We all know that there is waste in our government. Is there major fraud too? I rather doubt it is anywhere NEAR the claims being made about fraud, but surely SOME exists. People are routinely caught in fraud so it's not a stretch to guess that some goes undetected.

However, TW DID say that he thinks that the methods of DOGE are far too ham-handed.

He doesn't say that he's good with tearing down essential services, in fact, the opposite. IOW, he disagrees with the methods used, but not the "goal" of a pared down government. I suspect that we might disagree on which parts of government he and we might consider needing paring down but surely we all think that SOME parts of it should be smaller than it is.

As for the rest of the stuff, perhaps TW might enlighten us as to where he stands on those things given that he actually didn't mention them.

It's not fair to ASSUME his positions by reading into things that are too loosely related to be considered valid conclusions.

As I've noted many times, I've known TW for over 2 decades. I've always found him to be civil, reasonable, and quite moderate. Center Right on some things and dead Center on others. He's always been polite about disagreements on topics and willing to hear out opposition. Sometimes he's changed his view, other times he did not. Sometimes he convinced me of his viewpoint when he's made the case solidly.

He always offers me insight into the "opposition views" so that I can recognize that "we all want the same things, but just have different views on the methods employed to achieve them".

TW is NOT MAGA. Not by a LONG SHOT. He's a traditional Republican who embraces a traditional conservative view in politics which includes fiscal as well as social responsibility. He has compassion, kindness, and generosity of spirit for the oppressed and the needy so approves of necessary social safety nets. He just opposes throwing money at problems instead of carefully examining them to decide what will work and what is a waste of resources. I agree with that part 100%.

I am fiscally conservative while socially liberal. I'd say that he is also fiscally conservative but socially moderate. For example, his position on transgenders is that they have every right to exist, to be safe, and to be treated equally. However, they don't have the right to be treated BETTER than others. ( I agree on that too!) IOW, they don't belong in women's sports competing with cis-women. I'm pretty sure that he believes that minors shouldn't have surgical procedures and no hormonal treatments until they are adults. * I think that he's fine with civil marriages for gays, but doesn't think any church should be forced to marry them against their beliefs.**

* I disagree on having hormonal treatments but I'm good with it only for teens, not preteens because they are so young that they haven't necessarily "found" themselves at that age and may change their minds later on about their gender when it's too late because their bodies have been permanently altered with the hormones during a pivotal growth period.

**I'm okay with that too. There are enough churches who will marry them that it's unfair to demand it from those whose beliefs so vehemently oppose it. They are not MORE equal than anyone else.

Anyway, I've gotten "off topic" now, so I'll stop here. I just wants people here to recognize that TW is NOT our "enemy". He just sees the world a little differently than we do. He's willing to discuss those differences civilly so why not talk to him like he's a neighbor instead of "THE OPPOSITION" ?