Trump is going to apply a selective pressure to advance the strongest candidate in terms of energy, charisma and yes, controversy, to stand against her.
So the qualifications for president are energy, charisma, and controversy?
I thought it was an understanding of how to run the damn country. Maybe we should discuss that?
4). To the degree supporters break the law, they should be held accountable.
When a heckler disrupts a Bush rally or an Obama rally or anyone else's political rally, they're peacefully escorted off the premises by security, possibly arrested and charged with a misdemeanor or two if they were bad enough. They are not attacked by the crowd, and the guy at the podium does not incite the crowd to attack them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No. He really doesn't. Interestingly, I was just reading conspiracy theories he was being paid off by the Democrats, because there's no way he'd win the general election!
Most citizens have given up on politics. And it seems clear that most actual voters are poorly informed. But they do know which outfits the stars are wearing and/or their favorite restaurants.
But your sentiment is absolutely correct. If only more folks took all of this seriously.
And yet, I asked you for your reasons for voting Trump, and apart from you saying he's got "uber merit," whatever that even means, you didn't give anything resembling an answer.
This is the cognitive disconnect that happens. It's not enough to say, "If only more folks took all of this seriously," and then NOT take it seriously. You have to take it seriously. That means scrutinizing your own rationale for supporting a candidate.
Trump can win because of his blunt candor and alpha strength.
Trump has terrible favorability ratings because of his blunt candor and alpha strength.
If Trump loses, either of the super caring Dems will save all of us from micro aggressions and such. I am not worried in the slightest. Who do u hope the next POTUS will be?
Not Trump, Cruz, Hillary, or Bernie.
I discussed the merit of we the people. Best person for the job, regardless of superficial differences. Trump has lots of pros and cons, thus uber merit.
That's the opposite of an answer. What makes Trump the best person for the job in your opinion?
How does having lots of cons constitute "uber merit"? Do you know what the word "con" means?
El Donaldo has decades MORE experience and success than Obama. Fact.
No, he doesn't. Not in the political realm. Trump has never held public office.
Mittens was tame, compared to the current crop.
Trump keeps winning in spite of poor favoribility numbers. Goal is to win.
I love Trump's over the top style. I believe he will turn the economy around, by embracing the goal of American excellence. The best social program is a decent job, not cradle to grave dependence.
Everyone has pros and cons. Overcoming defeat is a critical skill. DJT has done so many times in the last few decades. And he has had even more victories. Respect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
I will take Trump's resume over either of the last 2 con artists in chief 24/7/365.
Who are you referring to? Just curious if you mean to imply that Obama was somehow a con artist like Trump.
Imply? I said it clear as day. Both were supported by many dozens of corrupt politicians, as well as all the other types of crony capitalists. They are all anathema to liberty and freedom.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
People think he's being rude, but he's actually be honest. What he says is what no one else on the panel has the backbone to admit.
I don't honestly think that the other candidates, or any educated person on the subject, thinks that all Muslims are a threat to America. I don't think the other candidates would characterize that the majority of Mexican immigrants are drug dealers, criminals, and rapists with some good people.
Trump supporters like to say that Trump gives the hard truths. But he doesn't. He says things that are wrong. And there's a difference between not being politically correct and not being correct.
I don't find anything wrong with him, his thoughts or even his behavior. As I've already stated, the thoughts he has the courage to express are shared by many if not all candidates on the GOP, who won't risk their careers admitting it. Everyone else is so busy being savvy, stealthy and political (completely contrived in their approach) and then there's Trump, who lays it all out flat for the world to see. His opponents are no doubt thrilled to see him take the heat for what they all would love expressed, lacking the spine to do it themselves. I've heard about their families, how these top 1% candidates robbing this nation grew up poor and humble, how they want a safe home for America's children. And then there's Trump, bulldozing everyone's feelings with the hard truth that these Washington tools all fear to address.
I will not respect a candidate that values their own campaign over reality.
I will take Trump's resume over either of the last 2 con artists in chief 24/7/365.
Who are you referring to? Just curious if you mean to imply that Obama was somehow a con artist like Trump.
Imply? I said it clear as day. Both were supported by many dozens of corrupt politicians, as well as all the other types of crony capitalists. They are all anathema to liberty and freedom.
Which of Trump's policies will solve this problem?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
4). To the degree supporters break the law, they should be held accountable.
When a heckler disrupts a Bush rally or an Obama rally or anyone else's political rally, they're peacefully escorted off the premises by security, possibly arrested and charged with a misdemeanor or two if they were bad enough. They are not attacked by the crowd, and the guy at the podium does not incite the crowd to attack them.
You still refuse to provide proof that Trump requested his supporters punch a peaceful and innocent protester. U cannot because it did NOT happen that way. I rest my case. #EyesWideOpen
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
No. He really doesn't. Interestingly, I was just reading conspiracy theories he was being paid off by the Democrats, because there's no way he'd win the general election!
As a crossover between the violence last night, and the honesty of Trump: Trump says he consulted law enforcement about cancelling the rally; the police say they had no role in the decision, were not consulted and did not provide an opinion.
Mitt believed 47% of voters would choose Obama, at a minimum. The horror!!
Alpha strength and fighter and bluntness FTW.
Romney said that his job “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” The 47% he was referring to weren't slackers and moochers, they were the temporarily unemployed, the working poor, the elderly. Can you see why they - and their families and friends - could find comments like that offensive? Desperately working multiple low-paying jobs, getting laid off in a recession, and (of all things) growing old do not show a lack of responsibility. The president has to be president for everyone.
You still refuse to provide proof that Trump requested his supporters punch a peaceful and innocent protester. U cannot because it did NOT happen that way. I rest my case.
Perhaps you just can't remember fourteen hours into the past:
Most citizens have given up on politics. And it seems clear that most actual voters are poorly informed. But they do know which outfits the stars are wearing and/or their favorite restaurants.
But your sentiment is absolutely correct. If only more folks took all of this seriously.
And yet, I asked you for your reasons for voting Trump, and apart from you saying he's got "uber merit," whatever that even means, you didn't give anything resembling an answer.
This is the cognitive disconnect that happens. It's not enough to say, "If only more folks took all of this seriously," and then NOT take it seriously. You have to take it seriously. That means scrutinizing your own rationale for supporting a candidate.
You were talking to Infallible, not me.
Enforce current immigration laws. Attempt to clarify if illegals can cross the border, pop out a cute kid, and then be rewarded. Improve trade deals. Decrease federal power. Decrease the terrible contracts between our military and private companies. Increase local and state power. Defeat ISIS. Drive out a bunch of the propagandists pretending to be journalists. Those are a few of my hopes, based on Trump's comments to date.
Maybe he will end up being just another crony capitalist, like all the others. I will roll the dice!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
I don't honestly think that the other candidates, or any educated person on the subject, thinks that all Muslims are a threat to America. I don't think the other candidates would characterize that the majority of Mexican immigrants are drug dealers, criminals, and rapists with some good people.
Trump supporters like to say that Trump gives the hard truths. But he doesn't. He says things that are wrong. And there's a difference between not being politically correct and not being correct.
Trump has a point on both counts. Illegal immigrants from Mexico are people already willing to break America's laws once they cross the border for their own agenda. I realize the situation is emotional considering that agenda is sometimes survival - but we need to look at this objectively. It's illegal immigration. Illegal is the key word. Take his comments into context and see we're not accepting screened and approved people this way. And not every nation, notably Syria in these present times, has the advantage of geography the way Mexico does. It's not fair to the world, or the laws of the US that has an immigration process, to allow those who defy all this from the get-go. We're not getting the creme of the crop from Mexico running across the border. We don't know what we're getting at all. And I know many are hard workers who want a chance. But there is a whole world out there with people who do. Sadly.
"A threat until proven otherwise" is caution as I see it. It's a post-9/11, current-ISIS world. And if you've lived overseas and see Islam in the context of the cultural, historical (grudge over the crusades even) and educational (or lack there of) scope of the region, you'd understand Trump's comments. There is an opposition to the ideals of the west. The US is a Judeo-Christian nation, it's simply going to be different. But I didn't interpret it as "all muslims are bad" - not anymore than all Christians are because of the Wesboro Baptist Church or KKK. But there is hate out there for the US. It's a reality.
Can't follow with you there. Sander's main audience are white college students and working class folks. Clinton's the one that draws on the black vote - hence her victories in the South. Sanders might be a self-identifying socialist, but there are conservatives that absolute loathe Hillary Clinton.
Nah, I'm not talking about the black vote, though I do believe that Bernie is making gains there of late. I'm talking about the Democrat gaining the anti-racist vote by default. And not in the usual way, but by contrast to their over the top opponent.
Quote from Infallible »
Bernie terrifies the ***** out of me.Not because of his socialist agenda. I can live with that. I already pay a crap ton of taxes and I'd be fine with taking advantage of the things he wants to make happen, as I'd be paying for them anyways (most likely).
'Whatever' about taxes. The threat of a universal higher education program would be among my chief concerns for some of the reasons you detail in your post.
Universal higher education is an even worse idea than universal healthcare. Not everyone is cut out for college and the "free" that is mentioned is always masqueraded behind higher taxes. But neither Bernie nor Hillary have articulated how it would lower the costs. No mention of the administrators who are almost universally useless and contribute nothing to the system for example. Imagine how many more there would be when there's "universal secondary education".
You still refuse to provide proof that Trump requested his supporters punch a peaceful and innocent protester. U cannot because it did NOT happen that way. I rest my case.
Perhaps you just can't remember fourteen hours into the past:
I appreciate it too. I'm trying my best not to get angry as I get attacked on all sides on this forum. The amount of critical thinking and fat checking I've had to do here has been pretty eye opening and I think I'm better for it.
The thing about sources is, and I've said this before in this thread, is that I can find X+1 articles agreeing with me to your X articles. That doesn't make me right. Nor does it make me wrong. It makes me able to copy and paste a survey written by bias'd journalists and economics.
When you are forced to provide citations for literally everything a lot of the times I find that I'm just showing articles written by pro-Conservative/GOP/Trump authors and putting them against the literal opposite. It's really frustrating because it's hard to figure out who is actually right.
I've used Bernie's policies as a very real clear cut example of this. The right says he's a disaster, the left says he's a disaster, and the far left says he's the second coming of christ. You can see the exact opposite for Trump in that the right thinks he's a disaster, the far right think's he's a total disaster and moderate articles consider him the next revolutionary.
It's head scratching and mind boggling.
There are a few very skilled debates in these threads. Highroller being someone I hate seeing replying to me because I know I'm going to likely lose every single interaction. And that's okay. I'm humble enough to admit I can actually be wrong, and even more humble to say I actually believe he is more intelligent than I am. It happens. It's all in good fun. I've held back calling a few people here Cucks more times than I can count now just as I'm sure they've held back calling me a bigot. No one's perfect.
If it throws any light on things, I have seen people on the left saying that Sanders holds positions they don't agree with, but if Sanders were to utterly fail in this run, it would have a chilling effect on other left-wing candidates running in the future. This comes from the perspective that Clinton and Obama are more or less centrist on many issues. (For all the rhetoric, Obama doesn't look like an extreme leftist to me, and now Sanders is there as a data point to illustrate this.)
With regard to the article I linked, I don't think it's politically biased - it uses Trump's own statements of his net worth at two points (1982 and 2015), and compares the actual worth in 2015 with the worth that would have resulted in 2015, from investing in an index fund in 1982. The performance of the fund is a matter of public record. If anything, the aim of the article is to encourage people to invest in index funds!
Investing in Mutual Funds as opposed to starting a business is the polar opposite of Hard work. I respect Trump's efforts in Business more than Romney's by lightyears because of the hard work involved in what Trump does. I think anyone who tries to trot out the "invest in mutual funds" argument is making a patently dishonest argument. Furthermore you have no way of knowing which mutual fund is going to take off and which ones aren't. It's Monday morning quarterbacking at it's worst. If you start your own business you have a lot more control over how that business ends up, while a mutual fund investment is literally a gamble.
I don't even support Trump at all but this has gone completely out of control. It's pretty shameful to see the left's true colors being exposed here because they can't stand someone that doesn't fall in lockstep with them.
This is a direct consequence of having political echo chambers in today's society. Peoples' thoughts become polarized, radicalized, and shut off from any sort of dissenting thought. Then when any kind of dissenting opinion is shown to them, they freak out.
Investing in Mutual Funds as opposed to starting a business is the polar opposite of Hard work. I respect Trump's efforts in Business more than Romney's by lightyears because of the hard work involved in what Trump does. I think anyone who tries to trot out the "invest in mutual funds" argument is making a patently dishonest argument. Furthermore you have no way of knowing which mutual fund is going to take off and which ones aren't. It's Monday morning quarterbacking at it's worst. If you start your own business you have a lot more control over how that business ends up, while a mutual fund investment is literally a gamble.
When people are praising how much money Trump has made through business, and that his business acumen makes him a suitable candidate for president, the fact that he didn't beat the average of the businesses in the index fund suggests that anyone whose company beat the average would be a better candidate. Starting your own business is gambling on _your_ ability.
Whereas if it's simply hard work you're praising, there are plenty of people making a pittance that work as hard (or harder) and do so in less comfort.
I don't even support Trump at all but this has gone completely out of control. It's pretty shameful to see the left's true colors being exposed here because they can't stand someone that doesn't fall in lockstep with them.
This is a direct consequence of having political echo chambers in today's society. Peoples' thoughts become polarized, radicalized, and shut off from any sort of dissenting thought. Then when any kind of dissenting opinion is shown to them, they freak out.
Physically attacking Trump is reprehensible, and the full weight of the law should come down on the perpetrator.
I think phrasing this as 'the left's true colours' is unreasonable. Unless you do actually believe that everyone to the left of (the US) centre will physically attack people that disagree with them. It's worth pointing out that a lot of people on the right dislike Trump intensely as well; what makes you think this wasn't one of them?
Assuming your assertion about echo chambers is actually true, what do you propose as a solution? Forced exposure to dogma each person disagrees with?
See, this time everything seems to have gone the way it's supposed to. The Secret Service grabbed the guy and took him out. No mob violence necessary. Trump even said, "It's much easier when the cops do it."
And then I scroll down to the comments, and right at the top is a guy saying, "I hope they kicked the crap out of that maggot."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Physically attacking Trump is reprehensible, and the full weight of the law should come down on the perpetrator.
I think phrasing this as 'the left's true colours' is unreasonable. Unless you do actually believe that everyone to the left of (the US) centre will physically attack people that disagree with them. It's worth pointing out that a lot of people on the right dislike Trump intensely as well; what makes you think this wasn't one of them?
Assuming your assertion about echo chambers is actually true, what do you propose as a solution? Forced exposure to dogma each person disagrees with?
No, it's not unreasonable. As the SJW side of the left has manifested, the left has become unbelievably intolerant to anything that isn't in the far-left spectrum of politics. They are scared to death of having any kind of conversation where their viewpoints might be challenged and as a result they will result to just about anything (including violence) to get their way.
As for echo chambers, I don't have a clear-cut solution to the problem. The internet has made it far too easy for people to phase out anything that doesn't line up with their views. As a libertarian I'm against forced exposure to ideologies so the best I can offer is for people to make a conscious effort to read about and understand the political views of people they don't agree with. Then come to the conclusion of what you want to support. However it's just too tempting in today's world to block or ignore someone with the click of a mouse because they said something they didn't agree with. I wish there was an easy solution that could defuse the polarization of politics but the technological nature of today's world makes that an unlikely scenario.
Except Trump is right and a lot of the protestors are violent thugs.
Why don't I see you calling his supporters "violent thugs" too?
If they are such violent thugs why are they not trying to shutdown other candidates rallies? Maybe they just showed up and got pissed off when they can't hear someone speak or get smacked in the head with a sign. If you are going disrupt my party I am going to throw you out. You have one guy in a crowd of 11,000 punching someone talking garbage in the face vs. an entire organized protest designed to cause a riot and people charging stages. Don't you dare act like the Trump supports are the ones in the wrong.
I will take Trump's resume over either of the last 2 con artists in chief 24/7/365.
I thought it was an understanding of how to run the damn country. Maybe we should discuss that?
Show me one straw man. Just saying the words doesn't magically make it so.
And when Trump supporters initiate the violence?
That's it? No rebuttal at all to what I said? Just a banal repetition of a point I've already addressed?
Repetition again. That's myopic.
When a heckler disrupts a Bush rally or an Obama rally or anyone else's political rally, they're peacefully escorted off the premises by security, possibly arrested and charged with a misdemeanor or two if they were bad enough. They are not attacked by the crowd, and the guy at the podium does not incite the crowd to attack them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What?
Yes.No. He really doesn't. Interestingly, I was just reading conspiracy theories he was being paid off by the Democrats, because there's no way he'd win the general election!
No matter what those true colours are?
This is the cognitive disconnect that happens. It's not enough to say, "If only more folks took all of this seriously," and then NOT take it seriously. You have to take it seriously. That means scrutinizing your own rationale for supporting a candidate.
Trump keeps winning in spite of poor favoribility numbers. Goal is to win.
I love Trump's over the top style. I believe he will turn the economy around, by embracing the goal of American excellence. The best social program is a decent job, not cradle to grave dependence.
Everyone has pros and cons. Overcoming defeat is a critical skill. DJT has done so many times in the last few decades. And he has had even more victories. Respect.
Trump supporters like to say that Trump gives the hard truths. But he doesn't. He says things that are wrong. And there's a difference between not being politically correct and not being correct.
He was also politically-divisive.
Trump hasn't faced the general public. He's only competed in the Republican primary, and doesn't even have the majority of voters there.
So that's your reason? You like the way he says things? That's his qualification for being president?
People liked the way Obama said things. How did that work out?
How?
Would you care to list Trump's?
I will not respect a candidate that values their own campaign over reality.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Alpha strength and fighter and bluntness FTW.
Trump says he consulted law enforcement about cancelling the rally; the police say they had no role in the decision, were not consulted and did not provide an opinion.
Romney said that his job “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” The 47% he was referring to weren't slackers and moochers, they were the temporarily unemployed, the working poor, the elderly. Can you see why they - and their families and friends - could find comments like that offensive? Desperately working multiple low-paying jobs, getting laid off in a recession, and (of all things) growing old do not show a lack of responsibility. The president has to be president for everyone.
And I'm curious, what do you mean by alpha?
PS: If you really "rest your case", you do not get to respond to this.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Enforce current immigration laws. Attempt to clarify if illegals can cross the border, pop out a cute kid, and then be rewarded. Improve trade deals. Decrease federal power. Decrease the terrible contracts between our military and private companies. Increase local and state power. Defeat ISIS. Drive out a bunch of the propagandists pretending to be journalists. Those are a few of my hopes, based on Trump's comments to date.
Maybe he will end up being just another crony capitalist, like all the others. I will roll the dice!
"A threat until proven otherwise" is caution as I see it. It's a post-9/11, current-ISIS world. And if you've lived overseas and see Islam in the context of the cultural, historical (grudge over the crusades even) and educational (or lack there of) scope of the region, you'd understand Trump's comments. There is an opposition to the ideals of the west. The US is a Judeo-Christian nation, it's simply going to be different. But I didn't interpret it as "all muslims are bad" - not anymore than all Christians are because of the Wesboro Baptist Church or KKK. But there is hate out there for the US. It's a reality.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Universal higher education is an even worse idea than universal healthcare. Not everyone is cut out for college and the "free" that is mentioned is always masqueraded behind higher taxes. But neither Bernie nor Hillary have articulated how it would lower the costs. No mention of the administrators who are almost universally useless and contribute nothing to the system for example. Imagine how many more there would be when there's "universal secondary education".
Do we really need to get go over all the false statement said around obamacare?
Except Trump is right and a lot of the protestors are violent thugs. This truth has been born out over the last two days.
Investing in Mutual Funds as opposed to starting a business is the polar opposite of Hard work. I respect Trump's efforts in Business more than Romney's by lightyears because of the hard work involved in what Trump does. I think anyone who tries to trot out the "invest in mutual funds" argument is making a patently dishonest argument. Furthermore you have no way of knowing which mutual fund is going to take off and which ones aren't. It's Monday morning quarterbacking at it's worst. If you start your own business you have a lot more control over how that business ends up, while a mutual fund investment is literally a gamble.
Another angle
I don't even support Trump at all but this has gone completely out of control. It's pretty shameful to see the left's true colors being exposed here because they can't stand someone that doesn't fall in lockstep with them.
This is a direct consequence of having political echo chambers in today's society. Peoples' thoughts become polarized, radicalized, and shut off from any sort of dissenting thought. Then when any kind of dissenting opinion is shown to them, they freak out.
Whereas if it's simply hard work you're praising, there are plenty of people making a pittance that work as hard (or harder) and do so in less comfort.
Physically attacking Trump is reprehensible, and the full weight of the law should come down on the perpetrator.
I think phrasing this as 'the left's true colours' is unreasonable. Unless you do actually believe that everyone to the left of (the US) centre will physically attack people that disagree with them. It's worth pointing out that a lot of people on the right dislike Trump intensely as well; what makes you think this wasn't one of them?
Assuming your assertion about echo chambers is actually true, what do you propose as a solution? Forced exposure to dogma each person disagrees with?
See, this time everything seems to have gone the way it's supposed to. The Secret Service grabbed the guy and took him out. No mob violence necessary. Trump even said, "It's much easier when the cops do it."
And then I scroll down to the comments, and right at the top is a guy saying, "I hope they kicked the crap out of that maggot."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, it's not unreasonable. As the SJW side of the left has manifested, the left has become unbelievably intolerant to anything that isn't in the far-left spectrum of politics. They are scared to death of having any kind of conversation where their viewpoints might be challenged and as a result they will result to just about anything (including violence) to get their way.
As for echo chambers, I don't have a clear-cut solution to the problem. The internet has made it far too easy for people to phase out anything that doesn't line up with their views. As a libertarian I'm against forced exposure to ideologies so the best I can offer is for people to make a conscious effort to read about and understand the political views of people they don't agree with. Then come to the conclusion of what you want to support. However it's just too tempting in today's world to block or ignore someone with the click of a mouse because they said something they didn't agree with. I wish there was an easy solution that could defuse the polarization of politics but the technological nature of today's world makes that an unlikely scenario.
If they are such violent thugs why are they not trying to shutdown other candidates rallies? Maybe they just showed up and got pissed off when they can't hear someone speak or get smacked in the head with a sign. If you are going disrupt my party I am going to throw you out. You have one guy in a crowd of 11,000 punching someone talking garbage in the face vs. an entire organized protest designed to cause a riot and people charging stages. Don't you dare act like the Trump supports are the ones in the wrong.