I'm so old, I can remember when left wing shills were hysterically claiming Trump's victory meant the market would "never" recover.
Forced to eat those words within a matter of hours, now they're throwing around accusations of "treason" for doing the smart thing and taking a profit at all-time highs.
No, your joy at the likely disaster and cheering foreign attacks on the US for the sake of your own profit is what makes it like treason. Did you thank Bin Laden after 9/11 because you had stock in coffin makers? Simply making 'a profit' is not enough to draw that criticism.
I wish you would remember when the massive problems crop up that it's from Trump's (and your own) shortsightedness and poor choices, but the party of personal responsibility will never, ever take any of their own. It's depressingly predictable. He'll blame the intellectuals like Mao, the gays like Putin, the Jews like Hitler, or whatever other scapegoat he can come up with (possibly all of them), and the right will pick up their brown shirts and 'take back' their country from the 'subversives'.
The element in question is Obama's utter failure to appreciate an obvious security threat, and the disastrous consequences that have followed from that willful ignorance. Why is that not an element worth discussing?
Oh, right: it paints Obama in a bad light, when the narrative is supposed to be about how terrible Trump is.
Because it's both wrong and off topic. It's a deflection from the very real issue that Trump isn't just dismissing Russian attacks on the US, he's called for them and continues to defend Russia. Trying to deflect from how terrible Trump is by talking about Obama's mistakes is silly. It's almost like you care much, much,
much more about attacking liberals and Obama than about how to deal with the Trump/Putin bromance or the Russian attacks on the US.
It's wrong because the type of threat Obama dismissed wasn't the type of attack that took place.
First, recognize that Romney was right, Obama was wrong, and Russia is still our enemy, and always has been under Putin.
First, recognize that Trump is allied with Putin, and that Trump's administration wants to oppose Putin even
less than anything Trump wants, which is to help his own financial interests by
lifting sanctions on Russia.
Second, recognize that this is far from the most important problem in our relationship with Russia.
Why is that important?
Iran and its nukes, and Russia's enabling of them, matter infinitely more.
Oh, so now you're actually defending Obama, because the nuke deal has done more to address that than anything anyone else has proposed that could actually be done successfully. What was that about Obama not doing anything?
Third, start taking cyber security seriously for once. And fourth, look for opportunities to counter-attack in kind.
Is there any reason at all to believe that Trump would do either of those? These are things I actually agree with, which is why I'm being so critical of Trump here while you can only try to deflect madly.
Clinton was the one who was going to be harder on Russia.
All your points mean that on this issue you would have aligned with Hillary. This was one area where she was much more aggressive than Obama.
Guess it's time to formally address this specific fallacious reasoning that's been repeated incessantly, often in the form of 'stage of grief'.
It's just an ad hom. That's all it is. It says nothing about the merits of the argument being presented. It doesn't matter if the anger is from grief or from your sports team losing; the merits of the criticism are unchanged.
Oh, and as for superfund sites, how does the
EPA creating one fit into your whining?
What exactly do you think you're arguing here? That the EPA is harmful? That we would be better without it? That business would do it better? No, you're just providing a knee-jerk reaction strike rather than deal with the actual criticism.
Exactly: they seem Trump as the primary enemy, not Putin. Putin is ONLY a threat insofar as he helps Trump. All the other **** they pulled, that Obama did nothing about, doesn't matter. It can't matter, because if it did, then that would mean that Obama screwed up, and that contradicts the narrative.
But the narrative can only hold for so long. When the contradictions become to great, it fails, and Democrats have nothing to fall back on. Which is why they lost to Trump, despite how horrible a candidate he is. How pathetic is that?
Wow, the irony meters better be turned off.
You criticisms apply more to Trump than anyone else yet you constantly fight against the (absolutely true) narrative that Trump's ideas and appointees are going to be disastrous, 'because Obama'.
You should have supported Hillary if you didn't like Obama's laxness on Russia.
But attacking the left is more important than country or even your own ideas.
