I posted a video of Obama in Germany doing the same thing that many are doing in the media social media and on here, blaming the voters. The commentary basically says, 8 years ago the people voted for hope and change, this election the people were left to vote for the same shit different face (what turned out to be W to Obama) voting against their own interests with Hilliary or putting their hope into the potential for real change with Trump. Highly recommend.
^^^ It still does not excuse the calling of citizens in your country (majority of them) dumb. It's almost like calling them deplorable.
first off not a majority voted for Trump. he won fair and square, but saying a majority voted for him is factually incorrect. 2nd if another country elected a leader who made known racist and sexist remarks, wanted to throw his opponent in jail, encouraged a foreign enemy to hack the email of his opponent, and wanted to deport millions of people living in his country are you saying it would not be ok to call those people out for being dumb or at the very least making a dumb choice? come on now be honest there.
The people that are making assumptions about why 61M people voted for trump are the same people that said only 2 weeks ago he had no chance of winning.
The people that are making assumptions about why 61M people voted for trump are the same people that said only 2 weeks ago he had no chance of winning.
The people that are making assumptions about why 61M people voted for trump are the same people that said only 2 weeks ago he had no chance of winning.
who is making assumptions. it's pretty clear the groups who voted for Trump.
^^^ That is funny pjhawks. In reference to your earlier question I was talking about "majority" to another poster rgambs blanket statement saying the average American being dumb. To an average American hearing that would it not invoke some kind of response? What is the average bar set? One fact is that the majority of voters who voted in President-elect Trump were Americans.
'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President Elect Video of an alt-right conference in Washington, D.C., where Trump’s victory was met with cheers and Nazi salutes.
'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President Elect Video of an alt-right conference in Washington, D.C., where Trump’s victory was met with cheers and Nazi salutes.
Spencer has popularized the term “alt-right” to describe the movement he leads and said his dream is “a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,” and has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” His speech begins, "Hail Trump..."
Why don't you compile all your posts where you've essentially worshipped him into one body of text... and apply for citizenship? Blind allegiance is necessary to support his type (or ignorance which, admittedly, has been contested by... two... posters in this forum).
Why don't you compile all your posts where you've essentially worshipped him into one body of text... and apply for citizenship? Blind allegiance is necessary to support his type (or ignorance which, admittedly, has been contested by... two... posters in this forum).
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.
focus on the 100 million plus who chose, once again, to stay home.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"One wonders if those people are people at all". A great first step toward that "peaceful ethnic cleansing". Or, if the cleansees don't cooperate, maybe not so peaceful.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
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.
these are all allegations. much like those against OJ and Bill Cosby and maybe even Michael Jackson. These are model citezens. How could anyone famous commit a crime? You wouldn't be famous if you were a criminal. After all, criminals are not allowed to be celebrities in American culture. We are too smart for 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.
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.
why not suggest this? what else are we to do? sit back and let some idiot and his army of psychos destroy what was once the world's greatest democracy? He's a charlatan. He's not a 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."
Yes. The average American IS that dumb.
the time for politeness is over folks. those who voted for ESP fucked us. We are not angry at you. There is only one orange faced turd to blame.
Comments
It still does not excuse the calling of citizens in your country (majority of them) dumb.
It's almost like calling them deplorable.
The commentary basically says, 8 years ago the people voted for hope and change, this election the people were left to vote for the same shit different face (what turned out to be W to Obama) voting against their own interests with Hilliary or putting their hope into the potential for real change with Trump.
Highly recommend.
I don't need to be excused, I don't care if I'm called elitist.
Almost half of Americans don't believe in evolution.
If that is true about evolution it is sad and deplorable.
http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/655-gabbard-statement-on-meeting-with-president-elect-donald-trump
http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/media/donald-trump-meeting-tv-networks/
She was the Bernie supportor hero, she wouldn't denounce Bannon like 169 of her colleagues did.
and yes this is meant to be funny
That is funny pjhawks.
In reference to your earlier question I was talking about "majority" to another poster rgambs blanket statement saying the average American being dumb. To an average American hearing that would it not invoke some kind of response?
What is the average bar set?
One fact is that the majority of voters who voted in President-elect Trump were Americans.
that will never be interpreted as fair.
Video of an alt-right conference in Washington, D.C., where Trump’s victory was met with cheers and Nazi salutes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/
Yawn
Make way...
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
It is disturbing.
Just like the violent protests.
You're dream man can do no wrong can he?
Why don't you compile all your posts where you've essentially worshipped him into one body of text... and apply for citizenship? Blind allegiance is necessary to support his type (or ignorance which, admittedly, has been contested by... two... posters in this forum).
TB please don't unravel and stick to topic.
Your.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the time for politeness is over folks. those who voted for ESP fucked us. We are not angry at you. There is only one orange faced turd to blame.