Of course he should. I'm just saying that no matter what he does, you're going to have a problem with it because you're still ass-chapped over him winning the election in 2016. That goes with a whole host of folks on the left who would rather hurt the country if it means they can hamstring the President or attack him in some way.
How about we make a bet? I will post all the times I've been critical of conservatives or republicans, or praised liberals/democrats. You do the same for liberals and democrats, and conservative/republicans (praise). If I don't beat you by a two to one margin, I leave the site. If I do, you leave the site. What say you? We can see who is more impartial.
Based on what I know of your posting history, I actually believe you. But you are the exception, not the rule.
I'm glad my presence chafes your ass so much that you keep throwing that hook, thinking I'd be stupid enough to take the bait. Not that I care much to stay on the board, but now you've given me another reason to stick around. The problem (other than me not being on the board under a democratic presidency; as stated multiple times), is the false equivalency of trying to compare one of the most corrupt administrations in history, to any other, making the amount of call outs even comparable. Evidence of this can be seen by the number of indicted officials, firings, and resignations.
Please don't flatter yourself, Palooka. Other than the occasional stomping you receive at the end of my boot when I bother to come to the forum, I don't give you a second thought. And lets not forget who started an entire thread about the other because of said chafing But your failure to accept the bet means you know that I am far more impartial than you. Otherwise it would be an easy thing to prove. The problem isn't the false equivalency, because there is no false equivalency. This isn't a "who is more corrupt than who" argument for two important reasons. 1. Fighting over who is more corrupt is like fighting over who is more a murderer when both have committed the crime. Regardless of how many murders someone has done (unless you're talking about mass murder which is in a different category), they are just as contemptible for the crime. 2. For you to say this is the most corrupt administrations in history is for you to claim you know all the details of previous administrations - which you clearly don't. It also assumes you are the judge and jury on a whole host of topics, and that you get to decide when a crime or breach has been committed - which brings us back to your lack of impartiality. The issue with this is obvious, you point out great travesties on this forum all the time that are neither great, nor a travesty. It just so happens that the event is something Trump did, and your obsession with him (clearly evidenced on this forum day after day) is proof that you will never give the man a fair shake no matter what he does.
And on the "most corrupt administration in history" bullshit again, here are things that were just during Obama that - had Trump been the President and done them - would have resulted in calls for his hanging. -Fast and Furious -Benghazi -IRS Targeting -Iran Deal -NSA Spying -DOJ Wiretapping Journalists -VA Waitlists -Taliban and Bergdahl Just to name a few. I'm not saying Trump doesn't have the same issues, he does. And the man is certainly his own worst enemy and he should be investigated on a number of fronts (not Russian collusion) but you guys make this more about him than finding or caring about what is truly a crime, and you ignore and forgive all the previous stuff on a whole bunch of technicalities you try to substantiate with flimsy evidence and horseshit. This is why you cannot convince people who try to keep an open mind - because they see you for what you are: PARTIAL
-Fast and Furious A mistake for which not enough heads rolled -Benghazi A good old witch hunt -IRS Targeting Fake news as proven by the larger number of liberals targeted -Iran Deal A good deal that kept Iran from developing nukes -NSA Spying Unfortunate continuation of Bush's policies which Obama should've ended -DOJ Wiretapping Journalists Unfortunate expansion of Bush's policies which should've gotten Holder in more trouble than it did. -VA Waitlists Unfortunate underfunding that spans all administrations -Taliban and Bergdahl Obama should've not succumbed to nationalistic pressure and at least waited the 30 days, but Bergdahl's desertion details were not known at the time of his swap See, that's what impartial criticism looks like.
Actually, that's precisely what partiality looks like. According to you, when "issues" arise in a democratic arena, they are labeled "mistakes" or "unfortunate" and excuses are made. On the off chance there is no way you can not call it corruption, you shift blame to previous republican administrations or to someone not a democrat. You are the living, breathing, very definition of partisanship and partiality.