Donald Trump To Dine With Ted Cruz At The White House Wednesday Night

dailycaller.com ^ | 03/07/2017

[RedWulf]

>The fact remains that time and again Trump has condoned violence at his rallies

Urging self defence or using figurative words isn’t an incitement to beat people for their politics. The fact that you continue to pararot lestist talking points long after they’ve descrited indicates you are of the left.

Secondly, Cruz and yourself are ignoring the organized and paid nature of the violence done to Trump supporters at Chicago. The left used brown shirts to beat us and break up a political rally and you condemn Trump for it. Pathetic. Be gone you disgusting #nevertrumper.

[nathanbedford]

So far on this thread we have been told:

1. Trump did not actually say those things

2. Trump was justified in saying those things.

3. Trump's words are taken out of context.

4. Nathan Bedford is the problem.

And now most incredible of all,

5. It was in self-defense

Self-defense eh? An extraordinary application of the doctrine when thousands need to be exhorted by the speaker who commands the venue security force for the multitudes to defend themselves from the threat of attack by of one individual who has already been manhandled, subdued and is well on his way to being ejected.

Keep spinning, keep diggin', keep denying, keep accusing me of lyin', keep justifying all for no purpose other than to prove that Ted Cruz is not a "real" conservative. You people must really hate Ted Cruz to go to these lengths to denigrate him for simply telling the truth.

[sargon]

You continue to avoid answering my straightforward and legitimate questions.

As such, you're clearly not interested in reminding this community of your history of overt hatred for President Trump.

You're hiding from your past so you can better deceive people in the present...

[RedWulf]

Ted Cruz may be a real conservitive who lost his way trying to win a hard primary, you however are not. No one who excuses leftist paid brown shirt attacks on conservtives belongs o FR. The DU is that way, traitor. -——>

[DoughtyOne]

"My contention is that Donald Trump overpromised …"

On that I can agree…

You are consumed by the effort to take Trump down.  Cast those who supported him as fools who fell for his treachery, and trash him any way you can.  Morals be damned, you'll charge him with anything nonsensical you can.  Proving Trump was the wrong guy to go with consumes you.

The only other guy in the running could only garner half the support Trump did.  His rallies were in coffee shops, breakfast nooks, and a few high school gymnasiums.  He wound up with about half the Republican delegates he needed (mostly by GOPe manipulation), and about 30-35% of the support Trump got.  Meanwhile Trump was filling convention centers and other venues with thousands and up to thirty thousand. (no outside manipulatiopn at all)  Trump wound up with about 1500 delegates.  Cruz wound up with about 650 (mostly by GOPe manipulation).  Trump beat Clinton, but not by a healthy margin.  It was way too close for comfort.  At 9:30pm Hillary was still looking like she would win.

You folks still don't get it.  If Cruz had been nominated, he couldn't possibly have beaten Clinton.  We would have Hillary Clinton as president.  And yet, here you are trying to beat up on Trump.  Why not join the rest of us in the real world fella?

Why do I remind you of this?  Because you're still fighting last years Primary battle.  You still can't let go.  You still think destroying Trump is the way to go.  If you do, then what?  What do we get done that Trump promised once nobody supports him?  DUH!  I have asked you to limit your criticism to the bill.  Strangely, you can't gasp the reason why.

You mischaracterize his involvement in crafting this bill.  You grasp at anything you can to make points against him in this discussion, and flail by doing so.  Swing and a hiss...

Here you are just thrilled to play up my comment that Trump overpromised.  What did I say about that?

I said he over-promised with regard to those with pre-existing conditions.  I also stated that I didn't really know a solution to that problem.  It is a condundrum, and yet you took a pass on agreeing with that to characterize my belief that Trump overpromised, the idea evidently being that Trump had tried to mislead folks on everything all along, and I had just agreed.  No I didn't

What is the solution to the problem of people with pre-existing conditions?  Many of them are people who worked hard and played by the rules.  Life delt them a poor hand.  Is it your belief the that Conservative stance should be that they accept this and die?  Should there be no provision for these folks at all?  I'm curious what you think the policy should be. While you're pondering that, realize that when a significant portion of our populace, 5-30% perhaps (just tossing a number out there because I'm not sure anyone really knows this number), can't afford health care, what is the end result of their becoming very ill?  In certain cases, that illness can infect other healthy citizens.  If this happens, guess what happens to the insurance provisions those who can afford premiums.  They have to make claims and the insurance companies have to pick up the tab.  Another words, the insurance companies will experience exposure one way or another.
You know as well as I do that Trump was not involved with crafting this bill. Ryan and his cronies in the House crafted this bill

Quite true but Trump has endorsed the bill, he has praised the bill, he has adopted it as his own. We all know it is the way of Washington that those who actually draft the bill do not get named. You say that Ryan drafted the bill which is equally untrue, his staff drafted this bill but Ryan's name is associated forever with it. Trump has made this bill a key part of the success of his administration and that is undeniable. Moreover, the bill parallels the overpromises made by Trump in the campaign concerning for example pre-existing conditions which are anti-conservative, destructive of the mathematics of healthcare, and ape Obama care. Finally, it is probable that this administration, any competent administration, will have jointly staffed with Ryan's people on the drafting of this bill. As you say, "Trump did voice support for this bill."

Stop right there.  Quite true was the answer.   The rest was a CYA attempt that failed.

For Obamacare, many meetings were held.  Obama, his staff, his supporters across the nation helped draft that bill and you damned well know it.  None the less here you are trying to make the case there is no difference between Trump and Obama on the two bills.  This and other ploys of yours are why I address the issue of you being desperate to trash Trump with any charge you can muster.  Who cares if it's truthful or not?  Who cares if it's skewed to the max or not?  Destroying Trump consumes you.

I do not equate the passage of this bill in it's current form to saving Trump's presidency, and I have corrected you on that point previously. It is my belief that passage of this bill in it's current form would be a lasting blemish on Trump's presidency.

In previous posts, which I quoted in part, you talked about "saving this guy" or words to that effect in the context of the bill and I have all along been associating the bill with Trump. I do not believe that you made clear your distinction between attacking the bill and attacking Trump. I understand now that is your distinction. I think it is an unwarranted excuse for Trump. He brought this situation on us by overpromising and by insisting that all of this would be done early in his administration.

Pathetic.

I have made it very clear that I did not support this bill.  I have also made it quite clear that Trump was not involved with creating this bill.  On the forum I have also stated that I do not support Trump's actions on this bill.

What I have tried to do is give Trump enough room to survive this so we still get tax cuts, and increased budget for the Military and other things that our nation desperately needs to right itself.

None the less, you go full speed ahead at trashing Trump, and you seem to be proud of it.  Those are not the actions of a man who grasps what's on the line here.  It is the actions of a man desperate for validation.  You still can't let loose of the idea that Cruz was the answer to prophesy.  Glenn, is that you?

A certain number of Conservatives will have peeled off. You have become a sterling example of that.

You MUST stop it.

Yes, I claim credit for anticipating all of this in writing replies before all this came up to the effect that we should keep away from this tar baby, it is absurd to believe that conservatives will peel off because of what the media has printed. The media is printing that the conservatives have already peeled off, and thank God they have.

Nope, you can try to cloak yourself in Conservatism all you like, but trying to destroy Trump is the only way I know of to reduce his support so that he will not be able to deliver on 85% of his agenda.  You have aleigned yourself with the NeverTrump movement, the MSM, the Left in our nation.  You don't just trash this bill, you trash Trump.  The destruction of Trump consumes you.

Except in that it doesn't end Obamacare. LOL

You got hung by your own argument there.

What???

Geez Louise...  Now I have to explain my side, and your side of the argument.  Please try to keep up.

From the post:Trump has aligned himself on this issue at least with the Rinos of the House and the Senate who have produced a bill embracing Trump's promises.
Except in that it doesn't end Obamacare. LOL  (Trump promised to end Obamacare.  Remember?  Overpromising?  Remember?)  Good freakin greif...
You got hung by your own argument there.
It didn't embrace Trump's promises did it.

In your penultimate remarks you seem to repeat your meme that is inapposite to criticize Donald Trump on this issue (perhaps on any other?) I have already said that I do not accept that censorship. Trump must be criticized when warranted or we venture onto very treacherous constitutional grounds. We also venture into very treacherous political grounds. I contend that the criticism of this bill has caused Trump to back off from his unqualified association with the bill as you described in his meetings with former Senator Demint and others.

You poor thing.  Someone might actually have a point about your attempts to trash Trump, but you can't admit it to them or youself.  You put on your Free Speech cloak, and try to demagogue the issue.

No, as a Conservative you should be able to grasp the idea that we still want Trump to have support for other things he wishes to do.  The idea is to trash the bill and ask Trump not to support it.  The idea IS NOT to try to destroy Trump's ability to get other things passed.  He has three years and ten months to go.  I realize that doesn't feed into the idea of Cruz trying to run in 2020, but hey, he wouldn't get any support at all, so why worry about that now?  Let's deal with this presidency and getting things done now.

I do she'd one sympathetic tear for you though.  It's just so unfair what happened to Cruz, and to know he'll never hold higher office.  I realize that's more important than the nation being righted, to you, but the rest of us aren't buying in.

So go ahead and play the NeverTrump card.  At least folks will see it for what it is.

Criticism actually works, that is why we do it, that is why free speech must be protected, that is why a political forum even exists.

Yes, you're just ever so much smarter than everyone else.  /s   You lie and spin against Trump.  I call you on it and you bring out our demagogic cloak.

I never once asked you not to trush the bill did I?  All this time you had free speech, and yet you went after Trump full force and not the man who drafted the bill.  Thanks for the protection you great big Conservative you..

You yourself accept that the bill in its present form would be destructive of the Trump presidency. Without criticism there is no mechanism to correct course to avoid such a calamity. If Trump associates himself with such a bad bill he must, by your own logic, be criticized for it.

Trash the bill all you like.  Quit pulling the lying smearing NeverTrump tactics.  It's beneath you.

[DoughtyOne]

I do not support Trump doing this. I am not going to go for the throat like I would Obama, as you are determined to do here with Trump.

I had no intention of ever supporting other parts of Obama’s agenda. I told you this before.

I do have the intention of supporting other parts of Trump’s agenda, and he must remain viable for him to achieve that other agenda.

Sadly, you don’t have the tools to grasp that.

You attack Trump like you would Obama, because there is a stronger driving force than achieving the rest of Trump’s agenda, for you.

Only you can tell us what that other agenda is, but I can only guess it’s you tying to prove how right you were to be a NeverTrumper, and how much more important it is to you to be vindicated in that stance, even more so than the nation being made better by most of Trump’s agenda he still has to implement.

Sad.

[sargon]

NB, you're the resident Trump-hater in this forum.

You pluck Donald Trump's statements out of context in an effort to smear him.

You defend the indefensible, such as Cruz's back-stabbing in the aftermath of the canceled Chicago rally (not to mention the fact that he played the race-card earlier in the campaign—the lowest Left-wing trick in the book).

It's no coincidence that Cruz plummeted in the polls after such behavior.

Everyone in this community is familiar with your distortions and everyone knows your as full of sh!t as the day is long when it comes to all things Trump.

In the past, you've called the man a "con-man", "fraud", and "charlatan", and when pressed to answer whether you still hold those opinions, you refuse. Why? Because you haven't changed.

Your not-so-subtle attempts to undermine the President on this forum are both disingenuous and mean-spirited.

Every opinion you offer regarding President Trump must therefore be considered in the context of your historical hatred for him, which you refuse to repudiate. Wrapping your hatred in a thin veneer of concern trolling doesn't help.

You're the "Tokyo Rose" of FR, and everyone knows it, and as such, you're merely sideshow.

Any contribution you could theoretically make to the conversation in this community is invariably tainted by the irrational hatred you show towards President Trump.

You're eloquence and erudition are wasted, because you're simply incapable of routine civility towards the President, always inserting gratuitous insults under the guise of thoughtful discussion.

Whether you intend it or not, functionally, you're a propagandist for the Enemy, not an advocate for conservatism, because of your consuming hatred for President Trump...

[Pic7]

Why did you adopt his avatar? Not finding any documentation that he repented of his actions later in life?

[nathanbedford]

You ask again, "why did you adopt his avatar?" The answer is plainly written at the foot of the "about page" to which you were directed:

… rightly understood, the use of the name and avatar of Nathan Bedford Forrest is to invoke not merely a unique historic figure but a living biblical parable.

There is another more prosaic reason which is also laid down in the middle of the essay which any fair reader will find inarguably relevant to the contributors on this thread who attacked me merely for quoting the words of Donald Trump:

… a man [Nathan Bedford Forrest] with unflinching fortitude to behold, accept, and deal with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect. There was not an ounce of self-deception in the man. This character trait alone should make every poster on FreeRepublic long to share the avatar and name of Nathan Bedford Forrest especially those Posters who evade unpalatable reality by resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, zotting, and just plain old-fashioned hardheadedness.

It is not I who seek to deceive the reader because I find the facts unpleasant, rather it is they who evade unpalatable reality by calling me names, attacking me ad hominem, zoting me when possible with unrestrained, hardheaded evasion of facts and with perversion of reason.

Read the thread and consider whether I have done anything but quote Donald Trump in defense of Ted Cruz who was assailed as no real conservative because he criticized Trump for inciting violence and thereby allegedly siding with paid disruptors. I did not open this argument by denigrating Donald Trump, the haters on this thread have opened and pursued the argument denigrating both Ted Cruz and me. I did not utter the words inciting violence that have provoked such venomous attacks against me, Donald Trump did.

I have never upheld the use of name and avatar with more justice than on this thread.

[Lakeshark]

I did not utter the words inciting violence that have provoked such venomous attacks against me, Donald Trump did.

Good Lord man, get a life. You are one sick puppy. Your hatred of Trump blinds you, and beckons you to say untrue and really stupid things.

You really should stop, you make a bigger fool of yourself with each post. We know you have a need to show yourself superior, the problem is you're not, you're nothing more than a fool that can't see how wrong he is.

Go ahead, why don't you lecture me one more time on why Trump can't win like you did a year ago. That was fun.

We all saw what you did for the last year, and know who you are (a fraud), you'll never be respected here again, and you deserve it.

[SamAdams76]

Whenever I see that dopey gif of that Confederate general, I know we are in for a sanctimonious phony baloney virtue-signaling lecture on how pure you are compared to the rest of us.

It’s fitting that you would still be shilling for globalist new order Cruz after his disgraceful performance during the election and his premature embracing of Hillary Clinton as president. He figured Trump wasn’t going to win so he and his CFR wife decided to not endorse him and prepare themselves to lick the shoes of President Hillary.

Oops. Teddy and Heidi put themselves on the wrong side of history.

[sargon]

NB, simply put, you put the worst possible interpretation on anything and everything Donald Trump does. You've done it for 2 years. You've engaged in gratuitous ad hominem attacks against him, have called him every insulting name in the book, and have never repudiated your hateful name-calling.

As such, you've been pegged as incorrigible; you're the resident Trump-hater.

If you displayed any moderation or nuance with respect to your Trump-hatred, you would doubtless never have been zotted, nor earned the reputation you "enjoy".

All the erudition and eloquence in the world can't overcome your pathological hatred for the individual, and consequently it taints every post you make in which he or his actions are the topic.

You've earned your position as the Tokyo Rose of FR.

You've called the man a "charlatan", a "fraud", a "con-man", and not only will you not repudiate such hatred, but you won't even acknowledge that you've engaged in those attacks. In short, you are disingenuous in the extreme whenever you pretend to say anything balanced, because your slant shines through at all times. You simply seek to hide your past of Trump-hatred, but since you still demonstrate it in the present, the concealment isn't very effective.

Now, why you'd choose as your avatar the image of a known racist and founder of the KKK, you're long-winded profile never sufficiently explains. Oh, it goes on and on with rationalizations, but it's all rather unconvincing.

But that silliness aside, your hatred of President Trump isn't something you can hide, and your attempts to disguise it under the guise of "reasonableness" fail utterly.

You are what you are: a self-drawn caricature; concern troll; a glowing testament of how irrational hatred for one individual can consume a man and render him offensive to the community of which he portends to be a member.

If being despised as a anti-Trump propagandist, wrapped in a pretentious, self-righteous mantle of counterfeit "truth", is your goal, you have achieved it thoroughly.

To the majority of the community, you will remain exactly what you are: a Trump-hater from way back, with an utter inability to be balanced or fair. You so routinely parrot Leftist lines of attack that it serves no purpose to point it out. You simply avoid responding to any criticisms which reveal your true nature and history.

You've done it repeatedly, for instance, over the past several days by not addressing, when challenged to do so, your voluminous historical expressions of disdain for the man who is now our President—a man you have never expressed any faith in, even as he obliterated your predictions and ascended to the highest office in the world, against all odds, and against your wishes—indeed, it is you who are the fraud, con-man, and charlatan, not our President, and until you face the facts of your own despicable behavior over the last 2 years towards this flawed but decent man, the opinions of this community aren't likely to change.

You've become a sideshow...

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

GREAT POST to NB I always looked so forward to reading his posts, not so much anymore!! He was a DIE HARD Cruz guy Cruz could never win the election NEVER!! I believe NB is in Germany at least I think he or she was wonder what he or she feels about MERKEL!!! As much as I would love to have believed a DIE HARD conservative could have won our election it was just NOT possible!!! Although I am VERY DISAPPOINTED in this whole healthcare fiasco Trump has turned out to be far MORE conservative than I expected! If however I see that LYIN RYAN is allowed to LOWER the tax cuts Trump wants, or start interference with the WALL then Trump WILL BE a one term POTUS the PEOPLE are sick to death of excuses and will no longer tolerate them!!! I believe that LYIN RYAN wants NOTHING MORE that Trump to be a one term POTUS!!! JMO!!!

[sargon]

Read the thread and consider whether I have done anything but quote Donald Trump in defense of Ted Cruz who was assailed as no real conservative because he criticized Trump for inciting violence and thereby allegedly siding with paid disruptors.

It is to laugh. The People evaluated both sides of this issue at the time. The Left wing interpretation (your interpretation, and Ted Cruz's) was rationally, factually, and thoroughly rejected.

And the reasons that Ted Cruz was considered "no conservative" were because (among other things):

1. He failed to show any loyalty to even his party in the aftermath of the sponsored violence that led to the cancellation of the Chicago rally, instead blaming it on Donald Trump using the flimsiest twisted logic (Leftist logic, your logic)
2. He supportable abominable so-called free trade agreements such as TPP, and the "fast track" process required to impose it on the American people.
3. He gleefully parroted the most disingenuous Leftist and Media (but I repeat myself) attacks on Donald Trump. Aside from the incident in question, there was also his shameful playing of the race card at one point, when he knew the facts to be precisely opposite.
4. He grafted the most prominent Establishment clowns, such as Neil Bush joining his finance team, and sought and received endorsements from the flower of the Establishment Enemy we were supposed to be fighting.
5. Ted Cruz sold the Revolution out to the GOPe in the most profound and direct way, because that became his only path to Executive power.
6. Ted Cruz essentially sold his soul during the electoral cycle, giving a shameful, unprecedented, divisive speech at the RNC.

Ted Cruz still has miles to go before he can redeem himself, but at least he's making an effort. The same cannot be said for you, as evidenced by your ongoing Trump-hatred.

The voters made their judgement, and in massive numbers; their behavior was a rejection of your propaganda (Leftist propaganda). Indeed, the voters repudiated Ted Cruz's false accusations (your accusations, the Left's accusations), and rendered their judgement as to whose "interpretation" of the various events in question was valid. Your smears were deemed illegitimate, and they remain so to this day.

As a result, Ted Cruz plummeted in the polls and never recovered.

You can cling to rejected and rebutted Leftist canards from here until eternity if you like. However, restating them, or insisting that they are unvarnished Truth, is laughable.

As I said, the People made their judgement, and they repudiated that of you, Ted Cruz, and the Left.

You say you quoted Donald Trump's own words. Indeed, you did—completely divorced form the context in which they were uttered.

If arriving at truth is your goal, why not analyze Donald Trump's statements in their full context? I'll tell you why not: because doing so explodes your smear for precisely that. There's nothing like omitting salient facts in order to support one's distorted view of reality.

You chose poorly. The People chose wisely, for once. The rest is history, and you can't stop living in the past—a past which you selectively twist in order to continue your hateful crusade against one Donald Trump.

Begone!

[nathanbedford]

Begone!

In a word you have just expressed why you are indefatigable in your screeds against me personally, you are trying to build a case to get me zotted. "Begone!" Seeing me gone is clearly your goal.

In this atmosphere if I respond to your bait and offer up the context in which Trump's exhorting of the crowd with remarks tending to induce violence, you will seize upon the descriptions and merely claim it is evidence not of the facts as they occurred but of anti-Trump bias. Look reader, see how much he hates Donald Trump! Banish him!

In this atmosphere, if I respond to your bait for an explanation of isolated words which you quote from on last count somewhere in excess of 15,000 replies I have put on this forum, you will likewise distort them and eventually scream louder and louder for my banishment. To reply to your demands is to stimulate a great ravening hater by appeasing you with that which you are utterly unentitled and certainly unworthy. You want explanations of words plucked from somewhere in cyberspace but where oh where is the context you make so precious when you so often demand that I supply it to you? You are a transparent hypocrite!

No, Sargon, I will not rise to your bait. You cannot succeed in zotting me for what I have said on this thread because I have done nothing but quote Donald Trump's own words. I have even refrained from laying out the particular context for each individual remark which is really damning so as not to give you more ammunition, more opportunity to distort. The context I did describe to you was a matter of general knowledge.

I behave on this thread entirely above board and I tried here as I do in all my replies to supply facts and reasons for my opinions. The venomous reaction of you and other ankle biters spews out because they do not like the opinions they cannot counter with facts but only distortions so you attack the messenger, you deflect, you distort, you willfully misunderstand and misinterpret. Many fair-minded readers will see what is actually happening here.

I find it abhorrent that I am driven to propound this for the record, I do so only for the fair-minded reader to evaluate and to make it more difficult for you to achieve your goal to silence me,

For the Record: 1) I am not now and have never been a never-Trumper; 2) I pledged to support Trump if he were nominated and I did so through the election; 3) I support Trump on virtually every one of his policies except his projected Ivanka care, his apparent position now on Rino care, parts of his infrastructure spending-other parts I support- and I reserve decision on his trade activities to see what unfolds, I applaud what he has done so far in jawboning corporations to invest in America. 4) I fully support Trump in every respect on immigration, even where he has softened his stance; on his tax cutting proposals, on his promises to cut regulations, and generally on his promises to "drain the swamp." 5) I fully support Trump's efforts to determine whether he has been unlawfully surveilled and the contents unlawfully leaked, there is a very real possibility of a conspiracy. However, I think his tweets on Saturday morning at 5 AM were rash and could have been better crafted, 6) I applaud virtually every one of is appointments and have even written a vanity in support of his appointment of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. 7) I think Trump has often been intemperate and unwise in his tweets and during his presser when he excoriated the media, although I fully understand and support his motivation, it is merely his delivery and intemperance to which I object. 8) I fully support Trump and his executive orders so far especially including the original Executive Order which has been ruled unconstitutional concerning immigration delays from selected countries. I fully support his firing of attorneys general as being within the norm and wise.

You can see that I support Trump when his policies are congruent with my conservative principles (immigration, tax cuts, surveillance, infrastructure spending, education reform, Supreme Court appointment and many more) but I reserve the right to oppose President Trump, with due respect to the office, when I believe his proposals or actions are unconstitutional, unwise, or not conservative (Ivanka care, pork infrastructure spending, Rino care). I do not accept that criticism of Donald Trump is ipso facto out of bounds nor do I submit to your censorship of my beliefs just as I do not accept you traducing my reputation when falsely calling me a Trump hater. It is for the good of the Republic that every president, not excluding George Washington himself, has been criticized. Any other condition, such as we had under the Alien and Sedition Acts, is but the threshold to tyranny.

You had your say now but the fair minded reader of this thread knows I have merely cited Donald Trump's own words. You will have to wait until next time for your electronic lynching.

[sargon]

As is your pattern, you completely fail to repudiate your broad-brushed attacks on the President.

It's obvious to even to most casual FR members that you're an incorrigible Trump-hater, whatever honey-tongued coating or veneer of "geniune" concern you attempt to wrap it in.

It's equally obvious that you've cherry-picked, out of context, the quotes upon which you attempt to base your spurious argument that Donald Trump ever incited violence. That smear has been forcefully rejected by the vast majority of objective persons in this community, based on an overall evaluation of all the available information, as opposed to your selective distortions, several of which I've pointed out, and, of course, which you've declined to answer.

As for my nefarious "scheme" of getting you zotted, you will doubtless accomplish that on your own initiative, as you have done so in the past.

I certainly am not trying to "trick" you into doing so. My statement "Begone!" was simply a personal sentiment, nothing more.

So you're exhibiting characteristic paranoia when you assert that you've been "baited" into anything by little ol' me.

It suffices to note that you have never repudiated your own ad hominem attacks against Donald Trump—specifically that he is a "fraud", a "con man", and a "charlatan"—along a myriad of similar snot-nosed insults. It should also be pointed out that none of those sentiments have anything to do with your lofty claims regarding policy differences or philosophical distinctions.

These attacks on the President were and are precisely what they seem: mean-spirited character assassination, indistinguishable from the pathetic, disingenuous tactics of the propagandist Left.

As such, it's perfectly reasonable to infer that you remain a Trump-hater who cannot treat the President with even a modicum of fairness. The evidence accumulates with virtually each post you make, whether long-winded or brief.

Thus, it is similarly reasonable to conclude that your irrational hatred of the man colors your efforts at "persuasion".

So you just go ahead keep wrapping your hatred for the President in the faux trappings of thoughtfulness, constructive criticism, or whatever else you choose to call it, just know that there remain plenty of members of this community who will take it upon themselves to apprise the uninformed of your true Trump-hating nature and record, which, to this day, you have not repudiated.

The statements which permeate your posting history viz-a-viz Donald Trump stand as an compelling testament to the fact that your are not objective, not balanced, and not fair-minded with respect to all things Trump—indeed, you're a highly skillful anti-Trump propagandist, and I, for one, will tirelessly remind this community of that reality, and of the historical record which provides ample evidence in support thereof...