|
Is the fact that Clinton lost because she was an awful, unappealing, uncaring candidate who ran a piss poor campaign common knowledge outside of this thread/forum? I know the Dems are sticking their heads in the sand, but what about the general public?
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I know the Dems are sticking their heads in the sand, but what about the general public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Is the fact that Clinton lost because she was an awful, unappealing, uncaring candidate who ran a piss poor campaign common knowledge outside of this thread/forum? I know the Dems are sticking their heads in the sand, but what about the general public? Common public perception is that an athropomorphic manifestation of the year 2016 is running around murdering celebrities and rigging voting machines for Trump. I'm not even sure if the popular vote favoring Clinton is widely known.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
jabby posted:Education, a decent media, and a political system that isn't the equivalent of an open sewer. So this isnt the worst answer possible (that being 'gently caress 'em, we don't need them' when we clearly do) but this isnt a good answer either. Instead of trying to force people to like the things you like ('educate them') why not find out what motivates them and try to do that? Theyd probably be super on board with any kind of attempt to address their dying towns, meth epidemics, crumbling infrastructure or the ballooning wealth inequality. Pledging to do something - and campaigning on it! - about any one of those issues would probably get a whole lot of midwest votes! And you can work on 'educating them' as you go. Telling people their concerns are invalid or privileged and the *real* issues are about people they dont know and dont give a poo poo about is going to be a non-starter. How do people continually not understand this? The average voter does not give even the slightest shits about people who are not them or like them, except maybe some vague disdain, and that feeling is universal across all races, genders and socioeconomic classes. You have to appeal to people as they are to get them on your side, not 'educate' them to your views like a condescending prick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Generally you educate people to allow them to make wise choices informed by facts. An educated populace knows that the same economic policies that'll give minorities a leg up will give them a leg up, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Let me educate you about how you win elections, you loving lie, you tell people what they want to hear, you don't talk about how the electorate needs to be educated, you just go ham.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Let me educate you about how you win elections, you loving lie, you tell people what they want to hear, you don't talk about how the electorate needs to be educated, you just go ham. It's not lying to say what you want to get done, try to get that done, and fail to succeed. That's why centrists feel Obama did a good job on ACA while leftists don't. The former feels that he tried his best with what he had even if the result wasn't great, while the left feels that he capitulated early on because he did not actually care for a UHC system. That's why we need less democrats that try to weasel word around every stance, and more democrats that will push for what we want. Trust is everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's this x1000. I could care less about Clinton. I'd have voted for Martin O'Malley to stop the bumbling, thin-skinned fuckstick that is Trump. I want every last one of the people who voted for him to spite people on the coasts to suffer the worst under his reign. I want their schools privitized and their rivers polluted into filth like his cabinet masterbate about every night. And they'll hem and haw and cry about Democrats again, because that's what they always do when a Republican fucks them. Haha. Amazing. gently caress Hillary and the Democratic party. Nothing but a bunch of out of touch hypocrites. Hopefully this will destroy the two party system and a farther left party will rise from the ashes. They can take their centrism and shove it up their asses, because it certainly isn't winning any elections. Look at the House, look at the Senate, look at Governorships. Their platform sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's not lying to say what you want to get done, try to get that done, and fail to succeed. That's why centrists feel Obama did a good job on ACA while leftists don't. The former feels that he tried his best with what he had even if the result wasn't great, while the left feels that he capitulated early on because he did not actually care for a UHC system. Nice false dichotomy you created there. It's possible to think ACA was the best we could get while at the same time wishing it had gone much further. You're confusing pragmatism and idealism for capitulation. In doing so you're falling into the biggest trap that Democrats have: Attacking fellow liberals who want the same thing as you. Meanwhile the conservatives are laughing all the way to their super majority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
reagan posted:Haha. Amazing. It's not just the platform but the complete lack of discipline in challenging gerrymandering, caring what happens in state legislatures and paying attention to thier constituencies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
size1one posted:Nice false dichotomy you created there. It's possible to think ACA was the best we could get while at the same time wishing it had gone much further. You're confusing pragmatism and idealism for capitulation. In doing so you're falling into the biggest trap that Democrats have: Attacking fellow liberals who want the same thing as you. Meanwhile the conservatives are laughing all the way to their super majority. Democrats will continue to fail, not because of infighting, but because they have no goddamn convinctions. Obama could have worked wonders in his first 100 days and used GOP blundering against them for the remainder of his presidency. Instead he relied on flimsy bipartisanship and moderate technocratic bullshit. All this led to nothing changing and people losing hope. His 2012 voters ended up voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
The good news is that Trump is going to uselessly stall all the Republican legislative priorities, despite having total control, because he's very, very worried about making sure at least one Democrat votes for them so he can say it's "bipartisan." Oh, and the Republicans in Congress won't just fall in line and will demand things like "Make sure Ned Lamont doesn't do anything he can get credit for," and "My state needs a Cornhusker Kickback if you want my vote, hee haw!" so even if any major legislation is proposed that they've been wanting forever they won't just vote for it in lockstep and will instead deliberately water down and sabotage it for personal political gain. This is because the two parties are the same and do the same things. Anyone "they're the same!"-ers want to toxx for that paragraph up above coming true? If there are people a few centuries from now they're going to study Obama's "Please? Guys? Just one vote?" first two years and Trump's upcoming "Yeah, yeah, I'll sign anything" first two years as the specifically Wrong and Right ways to react to taking over the U.S. government. I do so wish Obama had been less obsessed with that phantom of "bipartisanship." He and the Democrats really squandered a golden opportunity to put legislation in place that would be very difficult to erase. Oh, but if they hadn't tried for bipartisanship they'd have been wiped out in the midterms! Good thing they didn't try, it would have been terrible to be stuck with an openly obstructionist Congress for six years! BTW Trump won because literally millions of people said to themselves, "He's an open racist, clearly a misogynist, has no idea about anything, and isn't qualified at all to be President, but I'm voting for him anyway." That's it, IMO. We have President-elect Trump because an enormous number of our citizens explicitly chose to support their party's future over their country's, something President Washington warned us about over two centuries ago. If and when the nukes fly, it's because we let scum like Newt Gingrich turn our country's politics into an emotion-driven team sport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:The good news is that Trump is going to uselessly stall all the Republican legislative priorities, despite having total control, because he's very, very worried about making sure at least one Democrat votes for them so he can say it's "bipartisan." I think you're highly overestimating how much Trump cares about immediate public opinion over action and underestimating how much of a meek bitch boy crew the Democrats are. As long as they get some crumbs, they'll come to the table. JonathonSpectre posted:Oh, and the Republicans in Congress won't just fall in line and will demand things like "Make sure Ned Lamont doesn't do anything he can get credit for," and "My state needs a Cornhusker Kickback if you want my vote, hee haw!" so even if any major legislation is proposed that they've been wanting forever they won't just vote for it in lockstep and will instead deliberately water down and sabotage it for personal political gain. Trump's going to have problems with the Tea Party Caucus but you haven't been paying attention to how he can generate media and form a narrative with the country. The second they try to get in front of his agenda, he's going to name names and publicly shame them until the public revolts. JonathonSpectre posted:BTW Trump won because literally millions of people said to themselves, "He's an open racist, clearly a misogynist, has no idea about anything, and isn't qualified at all to be President, but I'm voting for him anyway." That's it, IMO. We have President-elect Trump because an enormous number of our citizens explicitly chose to support their party's future over their country's, something President Washington warned us about over two centuries ago. If and when the nukes fly, it's because we let scum like Newt Gingrich turn our country's politics into an emotion-driven team sport. That or he won because he was openly saying America first and I'm going to give you the change you want. Whether he will or won't is still in the air. If you just boil it down to 'all his supporters are racist misogynist retards', you'll never get them back under the democratic tent. (also what's up with everybody in here thinking he's going to start world war 3? he specifically wants to ease tensions with russia, stabilize the middle east and generally stay out of conflicts we can avoid. that's a far way away from the whole 'let's impose a no-fly zone on Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:(also what's up with everybody in here thinking he's going to start world war 3? he specifically wants to ease tensions with russia, stabilize the middle east and generally stay out of conflicts we can avoid. that's a far ways away from the whole 'let's impose a no-fly zone on This is typical Trump voter stuff. He made a whole bunch of contradictory promises and you guys believe the ones you like and disregard the others. In your case, you don't want war so you are cherry-picking the peaceful statements he made and disregarding the frothing warmonger statements he *also* made. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/ "And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump's plan on ISIS "bomb the poo poo out of them." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/trump-has-secret-plan-to-destroy-isis-by-using-profanity.html Trump on the nuclear arms race with his close buddy Russia “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/us/politics/trump-nuclear-arms-race-russia-united-states.html Does he still sound like a man of peace to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Trump's plan on ISIS
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:So that's at least two democratic policies being continued then. The point I was making is that Call Me Charlie had a touching and gentle faith that Trump was *against* these things, despite copious evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:This is typical Trump voter stuff. He made a whole bunch of contradictory promises and you guys believe the ones you like and disregard the others. In your case, you don't want war so you are cherry-picking the peaceful statements he made and disregarding the frothing warmonger statements he *also* made. Who said he was a man of peace? Bomb the poo poo out of ISIS was the plan for both parties and the rest of what you posted is tough man talk. It's anyone's guess whether he'll actually act on it or whether it's posturing to try to keep the rest of the world in line (but I lean to posturing because, if Trump is as vain as people say he is, he won't want his legacy to be the first president to get into a nuclear war) All of that is better than Hillary's position of 'let's turn our proxy war with russia over syria into a real one by imposing a no-fly zone (because all the planes bombing syria are russian and shooting down one would be an act of war) and let's get even tougher on iran to the possibility of bombing their facilities ('because the iranians won't fight for a program'  as if bombing iran wouldn't be viewed as an attack on their sovereignty)'
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I think you're highly overestimating how much Trump cares about immediate public opinion over action and underestimating how much of a meek bitch boy crew the Democrats are. As long as they get some crumbs, they'll come to the table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Who said he was a man of peace? You did. Call Me Charlie posted:(also what's up with everybody in here thinking he's going to start world war 3? he specifically wants to ease tensions with russia, stabilize the middle east and generally stay out of conflicts we can avoid. that's a far way away from the whole 'let's impose a no-fly zone on Call Me Charlie posted:Bomb the poo poo out of ISIS was the plan for both parties and the rest is tough man talk. It's anyone's guess whether he'll actually act on it or whether it's posturing to try to keep the rest of the world in line (but I lean to posturing) That's exactly what I mean. You think the stuff he says you don't agree with is "tough man talk." Trump supporters all deal with his contradictory statements by selecting the ones they like and assuming he will stick to them, and everything else is "tough man talk." Call Me Charlie posted:All of that is better than Hillary's position of 'let's turn our proxy war with russia over syria into a real one by imposing a no-fly zone (because all the planes bombing syria are russian and shooting down one would be an act of war) and let's get even tougher on iran to the possibility of bombing their facilities ('because the iranians won't fight for a program' We are talking about Trump, here. Focus! He's the *president* remember!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Supporters of politicians all deal with contradictory statements by selecting the ones they like and assuming he or she will stick to them, and everything else is "campaign rhetoric"  god forbid you actually look at his actions as opposed to his words and attempt to suss out a more realistic picture of what the man's like
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Nnng. This is like saying "Trump lies. All politicians lie. Big deal!" because Trump LIES AND LIES AND LIES, openly and blatantly and shamelessly, where other politicians "evade the truth" and tell the occasional lie. Honestly this forum has no concept of difference of degree. A flambeéd pudding and a raging chemical fire consuming a small town are all the same to people here. Both on fire, right? What's the difference? Oh, sorry you changed your post. NewForumSoftware posted:
His actions are mostly acting like a loon on Twitter so far. Remember he's never held elected office. I'll eat my words on toast if he is a wise leader, growing the economy, and refraining from pointless wars. It's about as likely as Putin quitting politics to become a drag queen in San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:This is like saying "Trump lies. All politicians lie. Big deal!" Big deal? I don't vote for politicians that lie, I think it's pretty lovely. But it is the reality we live in. Campaign promises/rhetoric is just that, if you want a more realistic view of what things will look like 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Big deal? I don't vote for politicians that lie, I think it's pretty lovely. But it is the reality we live in. Guess you don't vote then. Either that or you are painfully naive. NewForumSoftware posted:Campaign promises/rhetoric is just that, if you want a more realistic view of what things will look like GOD, I HOPE SO!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Guess you don't vote then. Either that or you are painfully naive.  (i don't vote to participate in the presidential election, i live in a state where it doesn't matter, local voting is cooler/better anyways)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Rust Belt voters voted for unfettered capitalism, then got hosed by unfettered capitalism, which surprisingly will always go where the money is (who would have known?) then in an effort to get back to the glory days voted for unfettered capitalism once more. You did a great job guys. Those jerbs will be coming back any day now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:You did. No, I didn't. That's what you (wrongly) interpreted. BarbarianElephant posted:That's exactly what I mean. You think the stuff he says you don't agree with is "tough man talk." Trump supporters all deal with his contradictory statements by selecting the ones they like and assuming he will stick to them, and everything else is "tough man talk." I edited some more reasoning into my original post but, to clarify, that isn't me selecting the statements I like. That's me realizing that Trump isn't stupid enough to get himself in a neverending ground war or a nuclear war. Like let's imagine that Trump is as vain as people say he is. If he is, the legacy he's going to want to leave behind with his presidency is one of greatness. He's going to want the history books to view him as the conservative FDR. He's going to want all the tacky poo poo he's done in his life to get to this point (licensing his name out or being the host of a reality show) to be a weird trivia question 200 years now. You don't get that type of legacy if you get stuck in a Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire or become the first modern president to engage in nuclear combat on a global stage. BarbarianElephant posted:We are talking about Trump, here. Focus! He's the *president* remember! Remember that my response to JonathonSpectre was to try to explain why people would choose Trump beyond racism/misogyny/stupidity. The way Hillary would respond to foreign affairs is relevant. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I edited some more reasoning into my original post but, to clarify, that isn't me selecting the ones that I like. That's me realizing that Trump isn't stupid enough to get himself in a ground war or a nuclear war. Like let's imagine that Trump is as vain as people say he is. If he is, the legacy he's going to want to leave behind with his presidency is one of greatness. He's going to want the history books to view him as the conservative FDR. He's going to want all the tacky poo poo (licensing his name out or being the host of a reality show) he's done in his life to be a weird trivia question 200 years now. You don't get that type of legacy if you get stuck in a Vietnam situation or become the first modern president to engage in nuclear combat. Every president wants their name to go down in history as wise, noble and capable. Unfortunately it's a loving hard job and I don't think Trump is up to it. He's unbalanced, easily provoked, ill-informed, and not as clever as he thinks he is. He also doesn't have precisely the same values as you think he does. He seems to think that people would respect the USA more if the USA occasionally dropped a nuke to remind people that we have them. Is that crazy? Well, duh!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I think you're highly overestimating how much Trump cares about immediate public opinion over action and underestimating how much of a meek bitch boy crew the Democrats are. As long as they get some crumbs, they'll come to the table. See, if Trump was actually this bad-rear end super-clever operator, I'd be a lot more optimistic, because he absolutely rules them all right now. He could call them all together and tell them, "Hey, I'm in loving charge, and you're going to send me what *I* ask for, and vote for what *I* want, or I'll cost you all your jobs by spending 30 seconds of my time making a commercial for your district." But I don't think Trump is actually all that interested in being President or running the show and while he might refuse to sanction a full-on attack on Medicare or SS he is not going to be super involved in policy outside of signing what he's sent. BTW you're spot-on that the Democrats will cave, despite being in a far stronger position wrt Trump than the Republicans were against Obama in 2008. The Republicans showed the way to defeat a controversial President was just to say no all the loving time no matter what, and that was against a guy who won big and had the country mostly on his side. The Democrats have a guy who is historically unpopular and lost the popular vote big-league and they are going to trip all over themselves trying to show how reasonable and grown-up they are and won't the voters reward us for this at the next election? Then when things go to poo poo the Democratic votes for whatever calamity is happening then will be pointed to as proof the Democrats were behind it all along. quote:That or he won because he was openly saying America first and I'm going to give you the change you want. Whether he will or won't is still in the air. If he can invent a time machine and go stop the Industrial Revolution somehow, maybe. When someone says, "Hey, I'm going to bring your $25/hour no-skill-required full-time-with-good-benefits factory job back from China," here's an important thing to understand: They are lying. It might be a pretty lie, it might even be one you want to believe, but it's still a lie. quote:If you just boil it down to 'all his supporters are racist misogynist retards', you'll never get them back under the democratic tent. See, I don't begin to think this, but it is inarguable that Trump ran an openly racist campaign where we learned he doesn't really think there actually is such a thing as sexual assault and he made abundantly clear that he doesn't know anything at all about history, economics, international relations, or the U.S. Constitution. To wit, that he was not qualified to hold the office of the President. And yet people, even people who thought these exact same things, voted for him anyway. So no, all his supporters aren't racist misogynist retards, but said supporters also didn't think that being a racist misogynist (and let's not forget, completely unqualified) retard should keep someone from becoming the public face of America, which is why I choke a little bit on, "Well, they're not bad people, they're just economically apprehensive!" They may not all be bad people, but holy gently caress they certainly are all bad at cause and effect reasoning, and they all did, deliberately, vote for someone who actually (IMO completely inarguably) is a bad person. quote:(also what's up with everybody in here thinking he's going to start world war 3? he specifically wants to ease tensions with russia, stabilize the middle east and generally stay out of conflicts we can avoid. that's a far way away from the whole 'let's impose a no-fly zone on I'm not worried about Trump starting a war in the "traditional" sense, of slowly-escalating tension and diplomacy that eventually fails and breaks down. I'm worried about snap judgment poo poo like, "That Iranian ship gave us the bird? Fire on them! That's a direct order!" A 3 AM Twitter-rant-esque clusterfuck that happens so relatively fast that no cooler heads are able to prevail. While I don't think there's a particularly large chance of this, I do think there's a non-zero chance, and that fact in and of itself is pretty worrisome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:He seems to think that people would respect the USA more if the USA occasionally dropped a nuke to remind people that we have them. He's not wrong but I doubt that's the kind of respect he wants. You're confusing rhetoric and reality again. Ironically enough nuking ISIS would probably have less blowback than enforcing a no fly zone over Syria, so I can understand why the voters might lean that way. BarbarianElephant posted:There it is again. "Trump will do everything he says that I liked. Everything he said that I didn't like was just rhetoric, tough talk, whatever. He didn't mean it. Unlike the things he said that I *did* like which he meant 100% with all his soul!" I remember when I was like you post-Obama 08. "Trust me, he'll follow through with the good stuff he said and totally isn't a member of the rich elite that will attempt to stabilize the country in the name of preserving his place on the top" NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You're confusing rhetoric and reality again. There it is again. "Trump will do everything he says that I liked. Everything he said that I didn't like was just rhetoric, tough talk, whatever. He didn't mean it. Unlike the things he said that I *did* like which he meant 100% with all his soul!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Rust Belt voters voted for unfettered capitalism, then got hosed by unfettered capitalism, which surprisingly will always go where the money is (who would have known?) then in an effort to get back to the glory days voted for unfettered capitalism once more. Democrats love big business and free trade. Let's not pretend that they've been some healthy alternative to neoliberalism. To Rust Belt voters it was a choice between an unfettered capitalist who promised staying the course and an unfettered capitalist who promised them jobs. This is not the time to poo poo on the Rust Belt. Democrats should be ashamed that they lost the Rust Belt and looking for ways to help the people there. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Every president wants their name to go down in history as wise, noble and capable. Unfortunately it's a loving hard job and I don't think Trump is up to it. He's unbalanced, easily provoked, ill-informed, and not as clever as he thinks he is. I give the benefit of the doubt to the man who took down two political dynasties and won the presidency despite getting handily outspent. He's clearly more clever than you think he is (it's either that or he's the luckiest man on earth) JonathonSpectre posted:I'm not worried about Trump starting a war in the "traditional" sense, of slowly-escalating tension and diplomacy that eventually fails and breaks down. I'm worried about snap judgment poo poo like, "That Iranian ship gave us the bird? Fire on them! That's a direct order!" A 3 AM Twitter-rant-esque clusterfuck that happens so relatively fast that no cooler heads are able to prevail. While I don't think there's a particularly large chance of this, I do think there's a non-zero chance, and that fact in and of itself is pretty worrisome. That's a fair concern. Like I don't think that would happen (because Trump seems to think that firing out crazy tweets late at night is no big deal and I'm hoping he realizes that committing an act of war against another country is a big loving deal) but it's impossible to tell whether it's posturing or reality until he gets sworn in. JonathonSpectre posted:But I don't think Trump is actually all that interested in being President or running the show and while he might refuse to sanction a full-on attack on Medicare or SS he is not going to be super involved in policy outside of signing what he's sent. Eh, he's already surrounding himself with people who have giant plans (read Steve Bannon's interview with Hollywood Reporter if you want a glimpse) and Trump is the exact type of person that would use the presidency as the bully pulpit to get things done. (and you may notice me using 'i think' alot but that's because we're in uncharted waters. it's going to be very hard to say for certain what Trump will do before he gets into office beyond the easy stuff like 'not start a nuclear war with russia/china' or 'not ground invade iran' or 'not drop a nuke') Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Trump is gonna start a nuclear war with France.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Trump is gonna start a nuclear war with France. Or China
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
rscott posted:Or China
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I give the benefit of the doubt to the man who took down two political dynasties and won the presidency despite getting handily outspent. He's clearly more clever than you think he is (it's either that or he's the luckiest man on earth) He's no dummy. What I am saying is that he isn't as clever as he thinks he is. There's a difference. He overestimates his cleverness and thinks it means he doesn't have to do any *work* because he knows it all already. He also *is* the luckiest man on earth. To a certain extent, you make your own luck by seeing opportunity and seizing it, which he is good at. This works in business. It works in elections. It doesn't really work in politics, especially international politics, in which doing nothing passive-aggressively is usually the best strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:(and you may notice me using 'i think' alot but that's because we're in uncharted waters. it's going to be very hard to say for certain what Trump will do before he gets into office beyond the easy stuff like 'not start a nuclear war with russia/china' or 'not ground invade iran' or 'not drop a nuke') People keep saying we're in uncharted waters, and yet, I've seen these same waters charted so many times before. The Racial and Religious Minorities are the Problem Just Give Me the Power and I'll Fix Everything Sea has been charted in: Italian German Japanese Russian etc. I think we've even seen this chart in far-out places like Rwanda and Armenia! Now, literally all of these other charts across this very same sea have ended with the ship of state in pieces on the rocks saddled with the legacy of committing historic crimes, but since this chart is in ENGLISH, the language of freedom, I bet it ends up with the ship sailing into a sunny harbor where everyone has a good job and everyone Let's get sailing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:People keep saying we're in uncharted waters, and yet, I've seen these same waters charted so many times before. The Racial and Religious Minorities are the Problem Just Give Me the Power and I'll Fix Everything Sea has been charted in:  If you think Trump's calls to deport illegal immigrants or stop Muslim travel to the US is on par with Kristallnacht or RTLMC, I don't know what to tell you. You're already vacationing in crazy hyperbole land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
I look in vain for the word "Nazi" or "Hitler" in my post. Do you think Trump's message was something other than, "The racial and religious minorities are the problem and if you just put me in charge I'll fix everything?" I also don't remember HITLER (there's your actual Godwin) campaigning on, "I'm going to start a war and kill millions of innocents." I think you could probably boil down Hitler's electoral message to, "Make Germany Great Again." Trump is feeding the exact same monster (let's call it a "hatred elemental") every other racial demagogue has fed. In every case, it got out of control and devoured all of them (and millions besides!), but I'm sure a thoughtful, quiet, calm man like Donald Trump can probably do a better job of settling down the bloodthirsty abomination he's been mercilessly whipping in public for over a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Nah it'll probably be opiate addicts after drug treatment programs are cut or eliminated and the epidemic spirals out of control
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:39
|
|