I think maybe you need a break. You decide out of the blue to answer a post that was not even directed to you with a red herring, and then get all defensive when your attempt at misdirection is called out by buddy.
I don't apply the labels you mention to you or any other posters. I focus on the alleged qualifications of Trump, and on my opinion of the statements people make on his behalf. I try to avoid ad hominem attacks.
If you truly are sick of it all, why do you engage? And are you really entitled to play the martyr card? I can't speak for others, but myself, I still believe that we can have civil discourse on any topic. Perhaps there is a specific person here who has called you "stupid", "racist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", "bigoted", etc., and if so, they shouldn't (I think speech or behavior that has these characteristics, particularly that of a candidate for office, deserves to be called out). But painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same broad stereotype based on ad hominem attacks and labels that you're likely to see on 4chan is not going to gain you any sympathy from those you are trying to persuade.
I have no problems with buddy and I think he knows how to read me without any explanations.
Martyr, really ? You've got to be kidding. Just calling em as I see em. My hide is thick and scarred from over the many years here. I have cut my presence here way back cuz I have little new to add to anything I've already said in these follytics threads. More rebuttals than anything else.
The main reason I dislike Trump is that he never stops bragging and insulting. Most of us have come across someone like that in our lives—mostly in junior high or high school—and we don't want to have anything to do with that person.
The Trump I see is all about Donald Trump. Most politicians have healthy egos but are basically driven to help others. Trump just wants to glorify Trump.
I have the same general approach when I look at hiring people. Some of what I judge them on is their knowledge background: are they incompetent or at least trained? But that alone isn't the only criterion. Once I know they're trained in the scope of what I expect them to do, I wonder about their character. Will they get along with their colleagues? Will they form alliances or create drama?
Applying that to the Presidency, Trump is clearly incompetent in the ways of how all of our government works, since he's never held public office ever. But, is it made up for by his ability to form alliances that create an upward moving team? There are certainly factions that will align behind him, but not the nation.
The only other questions I see being asked in here are how can people be so stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted or ignorant to vote for Trump.
I'm one of two people here, and the only one who can vote on it that, openly supports Trump. How many times am I supposed to answer how can I be so stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted or ignorant to vote for Trump. I mean really.
So just ignore me when I bring up Hillary when questions are asked about Trump while y'all insult me, over and over again. Is what it is. Some of us were unhappy with Obama for 8 years, so now its time for someone else to be unhappy for a little while. That's the way it rolls.
But odds are Hillary will win, so you can be happy for another 8 years.
Truthfully, already I'm sick and tired of this election cycle and resigned to Hillary walking past the FBI and getting elected POTUS. All that is left in me is emptiness and despair at the entire system and learning to live the fact that all the things I was taught about life and this country was all wrong.
I don't recall questioning your character or intelligence. As far as I can tell, your preference for Trump is based at least partly on your personal experiences with illegal immigration. I think Bernie is also speaking to Americans' personal experiences with expensive health care and college education. My guess is that voters will support the candidate who talks about their problems directly.
I put the same questions to supporters of Trump and Sanders: how are your candidate's promises supposed to become law or policy? Given the realities of Washington, what are the chances that those promises become reality? How much are they really going to cost? Aren't you worried that your candidate can't or won't provide you with details of implementation that make sense?
Clinton's promises deserve the same scrutiny and skepticism. All three candidates are promising big changes to America. Responsible voters are going to demand all the details and assess whether a candidate is actually going to get anything done.
I dislike Trump because he promises the moon but can't explain how he's going to make his promises reality. Many of his promises don't work even as theory. Some of his ideas (like the ones on global warming) would get him a failing grade on a high school quiz on current events.
The main reason I dislike Trump is that he never stops bragging and insulting. Most of us have come across someone like that in our lives—mostly in junior high or high school—and we don't want to have anything to do with that person.
The Trump I see talks mostly about the Magnificence of Trump. Most politicians have healthy egos but are basically driven to help others. Trump just wants to glorify Trump.
I think maybe you need a break. You decide out of the blue to answer a post that was not even directed to you with a red herring, and then get all defensive when your attempt at misdirection is called out by buddy.
I don't apply the labels you mention to you or any other posters. I focus on the alleged qualifications of Trump, and on my opinion of the statements people make on his behalf. I try to avoid ad hominem attacks.
If you truly are sick of it all, why do you engage? And are you really entitled to play the martyr card? I can't speak for others, but myself, I still believe that we can have civil discourse on any topic. Perhaps there is a specific person here who has called you "stupid", "racist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", "bigoted", etc., and if so, they shouldn't (I think speech or behavior that has these characteristics, particularly that of a candidate for office, deserves to be called out). But painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same broad stereotype based on ad hominem attacks and labels that you're likely to see on 4chan is not going to gain you any sympathy from those you are trying to persuade.
So on top of everything else, you're calling him a big baby too?
The only other questions I see being asked in here are how can people be so stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted or ignorant to vote for Trump.
I'm one of two people here, and the only one who can vote on it that, openly supports Trump. How many times am I supposed to answer how can I be so stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted or ignorant to vote for Trump. I mean really.
So just ignore me when I bring up Hillary when questions are asked about Trump while y'all insult me, over and over again. Is what it is. Some of us were unhappy with Obama for 8 years, so now its time for someone else to be unhappy for a little while. That's the way it rolls.
But odds are Hillary will win, so you can be happy for another 8 years.
Truthfully, already I'm sick and tired of this election cycle and resigned to Hillary walking past the FBI and getting elected POTUS. All that is left in me is emptiness and despair at the entire system and learning to live the fact that all the things I was taught about life and this country was all wrong.
I think maybe you need a break. You decide out of the blue to answer a post that was not even directed to you with a red herring, and then get all defensive when your attempt at misdirection is called out by buddy.
I don't apply the labels you mention to you or any other posters. I focus on the alleged qualifications of Trump, and on my opinion of the statements people make on his behalf. I try to avoid ad hominem attacks.
If you truly are sick of it all, why do you engage? And are you really entitled to play the martyr card? I can't speak for others, but myself, I still believe that we can have civil discourse on any topic. Perhaps there is a specific person here who has called you "stupid", "racist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", "bigoted", etc., and if so, they shouldn't (I think speech or behavior that has these characteristics, particularly that of a candidate for office, deserves to be called out). But painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same broad stereotype based on ad hominem attacks and labels that you're likely to see on 4chan is not going to gain you any sympathy from those you are trying to persuade.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
May 26, 2016 - 1:37pm
kcar wrote:
Or hey, you could vote the narcissistic blowhard douchebag and help drop the world's respect for us to an all-time low! It's the idiocratic thing to do!
Or hey, you could vote the narcissistic blowhard douchebag and help drop the world's respect for us to an all-time low! It's the idiocratic thing to do!
Not for nothing, but this a "Trump" thread, not a "Compare Trump to Clinton" thread. It's not really answering a question about Trump to revert the dialog to be about Clinton. There's a whole other thread about her. Just sayin'.
The only other questions I see being asked in here are how can people be so stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted or ignorant to vote for Trump.
I'm one of two people here, and the only one who can vote on it that, openly supports Trump. How many times am I supposed to answer how can I be so stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted or ignorant to vote for Trump. I mean really.
So just ignore me when I bring up Hillary when questions are asked about Trump while y'all insult me, over and over again. Is what it is. Some of us were unhappy with Obama for 8 years, so now its time for someone else to be unhappy for a little while. That's the way it rolls.
But odds are Hillary will win, so you can be happy for another 8 years.
Truthfully, already I'm sick and tired of this election cycle and resigned to Hillary walking past the FBI and getting elected POTUS. All that is left in me is emptiness and despair at the entire system and learning to live the fact that all the things I was taught about life and this country was all wrong.
So if his net worth is his primary qualification (according to him, since he boasts about what a successful business man he is almost as much as he tries to portray himself as a ladies' man) and he's been lying about it (his euphemism for his pathology is "truthful hyperbole"), that should not disqualify him?
Lies about military fundraisers, lies about wealth, lies about 9/11, lies about immigrants, ad nauseum.
The only unanswered question about his pathology is, does he believe the lies he tells about himself, i.e. is he cynical or deluded?
You mean like Hillary who insists that she had permission from State for her private server ?
Trump's net worth isn't relevant to his candidacy. The man is not fit or prepared to be President. We could argue all day about his temperament and character, but the guy hasn't prepared at all for the job. His knowledge base relevant to the job's demands is non-existent and he has a tiny circle of third- or fourth-rate advisors.
So if his net worth is his primary qualification (according to him, since he boasts about what a successful business man he is almost as much as he tries to portray himself as a ladies' man) and he's been lying about it (his euphemism for his pathology is "truthful hyperbole"), that should not disqualify him?
Lies about military fundraisers, lies about wealth, lies about 9/11, lies about immigrants, ad nauseum.
The only unanswered question about his pathology is, does he believe the lies he tells about himself, i.e. is he cynical or deluded?
Sen. Marco Rubio is criticizing the media, urging it to report the truth about violent protests at Donald Trump rallies.
“Hope media will start to report truth, many of the violent protestorsevents are ‘professional protestors,’ not grassroots,” he said on Twitter early this morning.
Rubio added that there was a “whole industry of professional disrupters who go to events to disrupt them knowing cameras will gravitate to them.”
“These protestsnot organic,” he said.
Rubio’s comments are starkly different than his reaction to the protests in Chicago when the Florida senator was still running against Trump for the Republican nomination for president.
“I’m telling you, that this boiling point that we have now reached has been fed largely by the fact that we have a frontrunner in my party who has fed into language that basically justifies physically assaulting people who disagree with you,” Rubio said in a press conference the morning after the riots in Chicago in March.
At that time, Rubio warned the political process was careening towards chaos, and blamed Trump’s angry and bitter rhetoric during his rallies for sparking the violence.
“It’s not just about Chicago, it happened in St. Louis … this has happened repeatedly now, this is not new. This is a pattern,” he said. “You cannot say whatever you want, words have consequences.”
Nice cherry-picking for that graphic; it seems they ignored the other eight questions. Actually on the majority of issues brought up on that poll, Clinton leads. Still, any poll results of 1,000 people can only be somewhat reliable.
'
