Yes, Scott, we don’t need to argue.

Thank you for your response and I truly appreciate the civility with which it was delivered. See, other Mediumers? It can be done. As for the argument, I think your assessment of Obama and Clinton are no less conjecture than what you say I am doing regarding Trump and his character.

Whenever we assign motive to any person’s actions we are going into conjecture. I will say it is probably not the best way to argue when it comes to politics to assign evil intentions when we don’t know the person or what their true motives may be. All we can do is interpret and that from the outside.

Regarding Trump, it is easier to speculate what he is thinking because he continually tweets it. Regardless of what the media is saying, you can’t say they are filtering the story.

I truly believe that Obama will regret his inability to respond to the Syria crisis with any clear policy or strategy. I don’t think I am underplaying his culpability. He bears responsibility. I won’t argue with that.

But, I would argue with what you say about his, and Clinton’s for that matter, philanthropy. I think it is supposition based not in fact, but in the opinion of their character. We see what we want to see based on our own biases. Unfortunately, the D or the R next to the politician’s name plays an enormous role in what we think of them. What policy we prefer makes us believe what we want to believe and I count myself as being affected by this.

I haven’t re-read what I said in the post you responded to, but at some point in my writing I have talked about the role interpretation plays in every area of life. Our thinking is influenced by our experience in life, the teacher’s we’ve trusted and our own analysis of what we read, see and hear.

I started life in a republican household. I saw the meanness of republicans in my own family and it moved me in the opposite direction. When I left home and went to college and grad school, I saw that more left ideas made sense to me. I was molded by my work as a minister caring for the poor and sick. Within that framework, I watched as republican administrations, not just this one, but almost every one made life more tenuous for the less fortunate and for minorities.

That is where my heart is. I confess my grasp on foreign policy is not the best, but I do think there is a basis in fact regarding the corruption of this administration apart from their handling of Syria and North Korea. You can say I am relying on the mainstream media and you’re right. I trust the process of journalism. I know they are open to having their stories amended should the facts be proven wrong. I read retractions and corrections all the time from stories in the Washington Post and New York Times. What I am not reading are serious denials from the administration based in facts and documentation. There is no real dispute about most of what they are reporting because they are getting at the truth, in my opinion.

Obama did change visa policies within those countries Trump listed. But he didn’t outright ban travel from those countries as Trump would do based on his own words and tweets where he specifically said what he was doing. I read the order Obama wrote and it was not a ban, so there is no comparison. I would suggest, if you haven’t already, look at exactly what Obama wrote in his order and compare it to what Trump has proposed.

I see no reason to get upset when someone disagrees with me. You seem pretty reasonable other than the fact that you’re wrong (joking). I see some fair points in what you’re saying and I really appreciate you making me think. A beer would be preferable over tea for me. As long as you’re buying. Peace.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Scott Frady’s story.