(07-03-2022, 11:51 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(07-03-2022, 10:50 AM)Sneakers Wrote: You think you can evaluate the whole of the federal government, based solely on the hold time in a single phone call to one of its agencies? 

Maybe it's time to move out of your parent's house and experience life in the real world.  It could do wonders for your perspective.

But hey, kudos for making it all the way to the second from last sentence in your post before mentioning Trump!

I've been out of my parent's house for about two decades and I'm raising two kids, earning a salary, and operating a business.  
And that's not what I said.  I said any person can evaluate things that way.  
If instead I were talking about myself, I would have mentioned the interactions I've had with the CDC and DoD over the years, in addition to the IRS.  The IRS is the one that nearly everyone has interacted with.

---

(07-03-2022, 08:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: If you can't give examples, it probably didn't happen.

Thread got derailed.  Copycat and Sneakers should be able to give one example of Trump exposing corruption that wasn't previously known, or of Trump reducing corruption.  

I'm not saying the government wasn't corrupt in 2016. It was.  I'm saying I can't think of a single case of Trump improving matters.

Sure, they can give examples, but it will just derail the thread further. We've been over this ad nauseum. You admit that there is some corruption in our government, but you think it's acceptable because there is a boogeyman that's scarier. 

It's pointless to debate with you, because you'll just move the goalposts and limit redefine the parameters the discussion. You think there are acceptable levels of corruption in our systems, because you believe the narrative that is spun by our established institutions. You refuse to accept any information from sources that are not established, which means the debate HAS to be held in the realm of information that only you think is credible. Therefore, it doesn't matter what logic is used or what you can see with your own eyes if you don't ever have to wrestle with anything outside of your particular dogma. You're like Bobby Boucher from the Waterboy. 



You keep believing what mama tells you. I think there is corruption that extends to the media, and the "facts" you are using are really just tools to manipulate the masses. I can point to an abundance of information to support this, but you can't truly entertain alternative ideas, because you don't want to critically examine your source of news. Until you and others here are willing to objectively entertain the idea, you will remain unable to see anything that counters mama's narrative.

---