His arrogance. Coupled with a public that didn't know or care enough to make him accountable for his words... or loved what he was saying and how he was saying it.
If the left hadn't tried to silence and demean the slightest speech that it didn't agree with, Trump's language albeit extreme in some cases wouldn't have been so much of a breath of fresh air (not so much content but the reminder there is some freedom left in this country to have an opinion).
When you tell people they can't have Christmas parties anymore because 1% of the population might be mildly offended, it will eventually catch up with you. It is a small example but when the left will go after something that small than you know what they will do when something more important comes along.
You basically outline trump's manipulation of a segment of the population that somehow are afraid that their way of life was somehow slipping away. Religion was used, as in your example, along with race and other spooky cultures.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
I think you might be overgeneralizing all trump voters into one motivation to make it rosier than it actually is.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
I think you might be overgeneralizing all trump voters into one motivation to make it rosier than it actually is.
Oh I have no doubt that there are many different types of voters in that mix including racists etc. but the voters that are "swingable", i.e. the many counties that voted for Obama twice but didn't feel helped by "hope and change", fall far more into the group that I am describing. That is the group that needs to be focused on by democrats in future elections. They are gettable if Trump slips up but the dems will lose them if they get lumped in as deplorables.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
Obama won a 2nd term don't make it sound like a republican has been in office for the last 8yrs ..
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
The "voters are angry" theme gets played every four years and isn't really indictative of anything different. It's usually referenced when the media trys to make sense of an election.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
BS are you really trying go convince them of your point? It is like banging your ahead repeatedly against a wall the longer you do it the more it will hurt. All the dems/libs and radlibs are going to be in a stupor of disbelief for the next 8yrs desperately wanting to put their liberal rosy glasses on again. They will continue to cluck around like a lost chicken. Their entire way of thinking and living has been turned upside down by one man, the myth and legend President-elect Trump. They can't function anymore - look around. Protests, petitions, impeachment calls and ESP has now become an acronym. Eight years is like life in prison for them - some can handle it and some can't comprehend it and go a little squirrely. They need to be back in a world where everyone thinks like them and they can scream racist at anyone who doesn't.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
BS are you really trying go convince them of your point? It is like banging your ahead repeatedly against a wall the longer you do it the more it will hurt. All the dems/libs and radlibs are going to be in a stupor of disbelief for the next 8yrs desperately wanting to put their liberal rosy glasses on again. They will continue to cluck around like a lost chicken. Their entire way of thinking and living has been turned upside down by one man, the myth and legend President-elect Trump. They can't function anymore - look around. Protests, petitions, impeachment calls and ESP has now become an acronym. Eight years is like life in prison for them - some can handle it and some can't comprehend it and go a little squirrely. They need to be back in a world where everyone thinks like them and they can scream racist at anyone who doesn't.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama Trump to be a one-term president.”
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
Far, far too much credit.
You are a very intelligent person but that seems to lead you to think you understand working class Americans much more than you actually do. Your assessments of the Tea Party movement are seriously out of touch and your assessments of Trump voters are just as bad. I know dozens of lower middle to middle class, rust belt Americans who voted for Trump. Every. Single. One. of them is either racist or wholly uninformed and just like him because he speaks his mind. That is the reality of America. Trump won on the votes of people who hadn't voted in decades, if ever. They saw a man who is as woefully inept at forming a complete sentence as they are, and they liked it. "He get,mE.Ivote Him."
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
Obama won a 2nd term don't make it sound like a republican has been in office for the last 8yrs ..
The democratic party was decimated during those 8 years and they are facing unfavourable terraine in 2018.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
So in other words... I'll choose a serial liar, woman molesting, tax evading, entitled orange guy given the alternative of the establishment.
Exactly! People are that pissed!
gullible
Amazing. You guys just can't help yourselves. It is why you will keep losing.
BS are you really trying go convince them of your point? It is like banging your ahead repeatedly against a wall the longer you do it the more it will hurt. All the dems/libs and radlibs are going to be in a stupor of disbelief for the next 8yrs desperately wanting to put their liberal rosy glasses on again. They will continue to cluck around like a lost chicken. Their entire way of thinking and living has been turned upside down by one man, the myth and legend President-elect Trump. They can't function anymore - look around. Protests, petitions, impeachment calls and ESP has now become an acronym. Eight years is like life in prison for them - some can handle it and some can't comprehend it and go a little squirrely. They need to be back in a world where everyone thinks like them and they can scream racist at anyone who doesn't.
I wouldn't dare try to convince a single one of them. It's just me being me.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
Far, far too much credit.
You are a very intelligent person but that seems to lead you to think you understand working class Americans much more than you actually do. Your assessments of the Tea Party movement are seriously out of touch and your assessments of Trump voters are just as bad. I know dozens of lower middle to middle class, rust belt Americans who voted for Trump. Every. Single. One. of them is either racist or wholly uninformed and just like him because he speaks his mind. That is the reality of America. Trump won on the votes of people who hadn't voted in decades, if ever. They saw a man who is as woefully inept at forming a complete sentence as they are, and they liked it. "He get,mE.Ivote Him."
Yes. The average American IS that dumb.
The new democratic platform ladies and gentlemen "The average American IS dumb"! #I'mwithdumb
^^^ That entire thought process, It's like a bedtime story read to you. It comforts you and puts you to sleep believing in fairy tales. An American calling their fellow country members dumb.
Donald Trump Met Privately With Network Executives And Anchors The off-the-record gathering comes amid serious concerns over the press’ access to the incoming administration.
Donald Trump Met Privately With Network Executives And Anchors The off-the-record gathering comes amid serious concerns over the press’ access to the incoming administration.
Any one who doesn't believe that President-elect Trump gets things done in private is a fool. What good is the press if they can't even get Hillary Clinton elected?
NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA
Obama: In a land of make believe that don't believe in me.
Wonder if trump would sit around as Syrian hospitals get bombed one by one?
No wonder President-elect Trump will work w/ dems. Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned her post on the Democratic National Committee after endorsing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, also met with Mr Trump but entered and exited out of sight. She later defended crossing party lines to meet with Mr Trump about US involvement in Syria, saying in a statement she would never "play politics with American and Syrian lives." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/donald-trump-meets-us-media-executives-trump-tower-high-manhattan/
edit - I wish the headline changed to high on his pinnacle over Manhattan. He likes pinnacles.
Anybody keeping up with this thread knows what you've been saying. I'm not looking back for any of the posts where you essentially speak to the collective intelligence of a US public that opted for Trump as a fresh face that would serve them better than Hillary (or any other part of the establishment).
I'm pretty sure nothing has been lost on anyone within the respective parties' think tanks: empty promises, outright lies, and deceitful tactics can be usefully employed to sway votes and win an election. If the aforementioned can get a narcissistic, deceitful, orange sexual predator a presidency... they'll work for anyone.
I accept your apology.
You mean you've accepted the can of whoop ass I opened on you?
I don't see how your mistatement of facts followed by a refusal to provide evidence of said facts is a can of whoop ass. So again...apology accepted.
Lol
You want me to dig through this thread to spit out to you what you have made abundantly clear?
No.
You keep gushing over Trump and how the people voted for change (he'll make everyone's wildest dreams come true... or America great again... or something like that) and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is an orange con man sex offender who's selection clearly defined the lack of values and/or intelligence across a nation.
So again... a beat down. You're not here for the hunting are you?
Yes...please dig...you will never see me "gushing over Trump" as you describe it. I'll help you out if you are too lazy though. I was never a Trump fan...said it on here 1000 times. What I said repeatedly is that there were two terrible candidates...one terrible candidate offered that even with all his faults he was acceptable. That is hardly calling him a saviour or someone who would "make everyone's wildest dreams come true". AlL I ever said is that in a choice between two terrible people Trump has more potential upside. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So please go dig...show me where I said anything else. Come on...I need a beat down as nobody on here has ever been able to deliver.
Fair enough with regards to your personal position on Trump. Thanks for the clarification.
If you recall... we began to differ when you took exception top the fact that I essentially called Trump supporters (for lack of better terms at the moment) stupid or lacking in values.
When you say, "... all Trump had to prove is that he was an acceptable alternative and that people would take the plunge and vote for him"... this supports what I am saying because at no point in this election did he ever prove he was an acceptable alternative in my mind. He proved beyond a doubt that he was completely inappropriate to maintain such a position and for people to vote for him anyways says much about that voter base.
Ahhhh....so I guess the beat down has been called off. Ok. Now in terms of your point I do take exception to how you describe his supporters (if you can call them that because many of his voters did not think highly of him) because they did a calculation compared to the other candidate. Some people on here have failed to come to grips with how terrible and corrupt of a candidate Hillary Clinton was. There are voters who felt they would be sacrificing values in voting for her. My argument is and always has been there is no point in trying to argue which candidate is more terrible as it is pretty much irrelevant in a "change" electorate. The voters are not stupid or lacking in values by selecting one candidate over the other...they are simply making a calculation as to whether they want "change" or more of the same. Voters new which way a Clinton administration would go and they didn't like it. They may not have had an affinity for Trump but they felt he at least gave them the possibility of something different. Don't demean that choice.
Possibility of something different? Lol.
That's for sure: a con man sex offender with promises that had no substance.
Again... take exception all you want. I'm right.
Enjoy your rightness all the way to continued electoral defeats.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not providing the solution to the problem other than suggesting you can say a lot of things that might appeal to the non discerning types and they'll eagerly buy in.
And what I'm saying is that to describe the average voter as " the non discerning type" or to suggest that they were fooled into "buying in" to something is the wrong lesson. It is in fact the backward lesson.
You really seem eager to give the general population a lot of credit.
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
Yes I am giving the general population a lot of credit. You should step back think of what they actually voted for and give them credit as well even if you disagree. People who voted for him weren't exactly "sold" on anything he said other then the "possibility" of blowing up the system. The data shows that Trump was not liked or even trusted by those who voted for him. People were just sick of the status quo and decided "change" had to come even if nobody was sure what that meant. That is not being "sold" or duped. In my opinion the most powerful line Trump had in the whole campaign, which was pretty much laughed at by everyone, was "What do you have to lose?". I bet many voters looked around and said "fuck it...what do I have to lose." It is that voter the dems have to offer something to.
Far, far too much credit.
You are a very intelligent person but that seems to lead you to think you understand working class Americans much more than you actually do. Your assessments of the Tea Party movement are seriously out of touch and your assessments of Trump voters are just as bad. I know dozens of lower middle to middle class, rust belt Americans who voted for Trump. Every. Single. One. of them is either racist or wholly uninformed and just like him because he speaks his mind. That is the reality of America. Trump won on the votes of people who hadn't voted in decades, if ever. They saw a man who is as woefully inept at forming a complete sentence as they are, and they liked it. "He get,mE.Ivote Him."
Yes. The average American IS that dumb.
The new democratic platform ladies and gentlemen "The average American IS dumb"! #I'mwithdumb
I'm not suggesting that we shout that from the rooftops as a political platform, but this election proved once and for all that if the ignorant (majority) electorate can be coaxed to vote we can expect policy, decency, experience, and intelligence to be minor factors in the decision making process.
Comments
Facts meant nothing to a lot of people. Decorum meant nothing either. What 'sold' people were fancy campaign slogans, empty promises and slur tactics. Let alone the very unfavourable character of the chosen candidate (tax fraud and sex offences pending)... and you think there is nothing to be learned from that?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307071-after-trump-meeting-gabbard-says-we-cant-let-divisiveness-destroy-our
Work with Trump in order to beat him later.
NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA
NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA
NO TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA
It is like banging your ahead repeatedly against a wall the longer you do it the more it will hurt.
All the dems/libs and radlibs are going to be in a stupor of disbelief for the next 8yrs desperately wanting to put their liberal rosy glasses on again. They will continue to cluck around like a lost chicken.
Their entire way of thinking and living has been turned upside down by one man, the myth and legend President-elect Trump.
They can't function anymore - look around. Protests, petitions, impeachment calls and ESP has now become an acronym.
Eight years is like life in prison for them - some can handle it and some can't comprehend it and go a little squirrely.
They need to be back in a world where everyone thinks like them and they can scream racist at anyone who doesn't.
President ObamaTrump to be a one-term president.”You are a very intelligent person but that seems to lead you to think you understand working class Americans much more than you actually do. Your assessments of the Tea Party movement are seriously out of touch and your assessments of Trump voters are just as bad.
I know dozens of lower middle to middle class, rust belt Americans who voted for Trump. Every. Single. One. of them is either racist or wholly uninformed and just like him because he speaks his mind.
That is the reality of America. Trump won on the votes of people who hadn't voted in decades, if ever. They saw a man who is as woefully inept at forming a complete sentence as they are, and they liked it.
"He get,mE.Ivote Him."
Yes. The average American IS that dumb.
Wonder if trump would sit around as Syrian hospitals get bombed one by one?
That entire thought process, It's like a bedtime story read to you. It comforts you and puts you to sleep believing in fairy tales.
An American calling their fellow country members dumb.
The off-the-record gathering comes amid serious concerns over the press’ access to the incoming administration.
What good is the press if they can't even get Hillary Clinton elected?
edit - elected
Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned her post on the Democratic National Committee after endorsing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, also met with Mr Trump but entered and exited out of sight. She later defended crossing party lines to meet with Mr Trump about US involvement in Syria, saying in a statement she would never "play politics with American and Syrian lives."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/donald-trump-meets-us-media-executives-trump-tower-high-manhattan/
edit - I wish the headline changed to high on his pinnacle over Manhattan. He likes pinnacles.