El Presidente Trump

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 07:27AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

He's not a particularly smart man, not in my eyes, in fact I'd class him as an unintelligent, ignorant loathe. He managed to offend a large portion of society during his campaign, that's not the sign of a good leader in which encouraging social cohesion is a must in trying to rally a society to pull together. His attitude and behaviour has the potential to further divide American society, possibly causing more serious social problems in America and beyond

Would you go as far as to describe him as deplorable and irredeemable?

HellSquirrel · 28-12-2016 07:37AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Would you go as far as to describe him as deplorable and irredeemable?

Deplorable, pretty much, why? Irredeemable is a bit out of left field and mixing politics and religious morality rarely works well.

I would go so far as to class him as a narcissistic, dishonourable, selfish, deliberately ignorant dimbleweed who should have stayed playing with his gold taps and the hell out of politics where he could do so much more damage.

Go on then, what was your trap?

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 07:45AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're right but you're also missing the point completely. He's divided the nation and won support from enough of them to become president.

Blame Trump, forget the corruption and scandals which plagued her campaign. Newsflash, it wasn't Trump who "divided the nation".

Perhaps the democrats should revise their strategy next time around. First they underhandedly worked against Bernie Sanders and pushed someone under FBI investigation, then identified Trump as someone their media friends should promote, you couldn't make it up.

http://media.salon.com/2016/11/pied-piper-dnc-email.png

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 07:55AM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Blame Trump, forget the corruption and scandals which plagued her campaign. Newsflash, it wasn't Trump who "divided the nation".

He very definitely did divide people. He's controversial approach to things wouldn't be controversial if they didn't divide people and get them excited. Do you think is was part of his approach to divide people?

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Perhaps the democrats should revise their strategy next time around. First they underhandedly worked against Bernie Sanders and pushed someone under FBI investigation, then identified Trump as someone their media friends should promote, you couldn't make it up.

Oh those were factors too. It would take too long to list every detail every single time we discuss these things.
I know your schtick is to never agree with the other side so feel free to ignore this paragraph.

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 07:58AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Go on then, what was your trap?

No Trap, it was in responce to him saying a candidate should rally to pull society together. You do know HRC called Trump supporters deplorable and irredeemable during the campaign right?

HellSquirrel · 28-12-2016 07:59AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Blame Trump, forget the corruption and scandals which plagued her campaign. Newsflash, it wasn't Trump who "divided the nation".

Perhaps the democrats should revise their strategy next time around. First they underhandedly worked against Bernie Sanders and pushed someone under FBI investigation, then identified Trump as someone their media friends should promote, you couldn't make it up.

http://media.salon.com/2016/11/pied-piper-dnc-email.png

"It's all the mean democrats fault for fooling me."

No, Trump's supporters don't get a pass for being dumb. On the one hand, it absolutely does not surprise me that the DNC had a plan to win the election (it failed). I'm sure the RNC had one too (but no handy Russians to reveal their inner workings). As plans go, it wasn't a terrible one in concept - sure, a bit underhand, but your surprise that politicians being devious in trying to win an election is rather naive. It was also perfectly logical that they chose to support the conservative choice rather than the man who wasn't actually a Democrat. Incorrect? Probably. Inevitable? Also probably. Pretty unsurprising that the RNC pick was Jeb Bush, although I don't think anyone expected that to crumble so quickly.

It backfired. The DNC (and, tbh, the RNC) thoroughly lost and will be picking up the pieces for the next four years. However, this does not excuse the demogogue asshat soon to be installed in the White House, and bitching for the next four years that you were fooled by the Democrats into voting for a narcissistic ignoramus will do nothing for anyone's consideration of your intelligence.

Wanderer78 · 28-12-2016 08:03AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

It worked, so I wouldn't expect him to change his approach now. He'd be a fool to change now and he's not a fool.

Again I'd disagree, only a fool would apply this type of tactic, unifying a nation is always important particularly in difficult times like now, I've always liked Deirdre mccluskys take on him, I.e. 'a lazy fool'.

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Would you go as far as to describe him as deplorable and irredeemable?

Na just as I've explained, just a lazy fool that's not particularly intelligent

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 08:04AM

HellSquirrel wrote:

No, Trump's supporters don't get a pass for being dumb.

Now now. Low information voters is the term for stupid people who don't know the difference between real and fake news. Even stupid people expect a PC term for bring a rube.

Igotadose · 28-12-2016 08:05AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Deplorable, pretty much, why?

Because the trumplodytes learned a new word this election cycle. They revel in being called 'deplorable.' What Trump'll ensure, is they're soon to be calling each other tovarisch.

HellSquirrel · 28-12-2016 08:10AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No Trap, it was in responce to him saying a candidate should rally to pull society together. You do know HRC called Trump supporters deplorable and irredeemable during the campaign right?

Fact-check:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.

But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

You are half-correct, but skewing it to imply that she called anyone that supports Trump deplorable. There -absolutely are- deplorable people on Trump's side, or are you suggesting that David Duke and his ilk are representative of ordinary people? There's deplorable people on the left too, but by god, Trump's campaign stirred up the section of absolute asshats that were likely to follow him. Follow -him-, not Bush, not Rubio, not Cruz, Trump. Also, to get to numbers, she technically called, by virtue of the wishy-washy phrase "half of" in the English language, which is imprecise when used rhetorically, she called approximately 13% of the eligible voting population deplorable. Was this a bad idea? Yes. Clinton does not get a pass for acting the maggot. Trump gets a bit of a pass because no-one expects any better from him. It's the difference of expectations between the A-student with some issues and the glue-eating one in the corner busily setting fire to Little Timmy's hair.

No-one's said that Clinton was perfect, but holy god, you elected a mad hamster. Really, you'd have done better -actually- electing a mad hamster.

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 08:11AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He very definitely did divide people. He's controversial approach to things wouldn't be controversial if they didn't divide people and get them excited. Do you think is was part of his approach to divide people?

His stance on immigration control is what created most of the echoing. Certain minorities numbers were strong in the end such as 30% Latino, as well as a small increase in black voters over Romney. He said certain things he shouldn't have, many other things were overblown by the corrupt media. Even though he's had black speakers at his rallies since the primaries and many many people of different ethnicity, he's continued to be called racist and homophobic by liberal loonies. That will never change.

I know your schtick is to never agree with the other side so feel free to ignore this paragraph.

I do agree sometimes and have agreed on certain mistakes he's made in the past, you made it sound like he divided everyone alone ignoring the other huge factors at play so I called you out on it.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 08:13AM

Wanderer78 wrote:

Again I'd disagree, only a fool would apply this type of tactic, unifying a nation is always important particularly in difficult times like now, I've always liked Deirdre mccluskys take on him, I.e. 'a lazy fool'.

Again you're right but you're missing the point.

What do you think trump's goal is with the American people? To make them 'healthy, wealthy and wise'?

He needs the people for one thing and one thing only -to get elected and to get re-elected.

If he allowed the election to run like any other election he would have lost by a country mile because it would have had to focus on facts and manifestos. Instead he used controversial topics to keep the spotlight constantly on him and whatever he was saying. He got elected without a list of pledges his supporters expect him to stick to. He literally has free reign.

Why on earth would he bother with a conventional campaign where he would be accountable to pledges ect? Particularly when he could just have a divisive campaign and win without anyone having any actual expectations of him.

Seriously though, what do you think his intentions are for the people?

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 08:18AM

Igotadose wrote: »

Because the trumplodytes learned a new word this election cycle. They revel in being called 'deplorable.' What Trump'll ensure, is they're soon to be calling each other tovarisch.

Better to learn new words than forget them and say I don't remember 21 times.

C in a document doesn't mean confidential remember.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 08:20AM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

His stance on immigration control is what created most of the echoing. Certain minorities numbers were strong in the end such as 30% Latino, as well as a small increase in black voters over Romney. He said certain things he shouldn't have, many other things were overblown by the corrupt media.

The immigration is a classic example because he said really controversial things with without any real intention to carry it through. He mentioned deportation squads and deporting millions of people. That was just rhetoric which worked on the basis that it was deeply divisive.

'Lock her up' became a rallying cry which worked because it's deeply divisive. He never intended to actually do it, he just used it for its ability to be controversial and get people whipped up into a frenzy.

Do you think he used decisiveness deliberately throughout the campaign?

Igotadose · 28-12-2016 08:27AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again you're right but you're missing the point.

What do you think trump's goal is with the American people? To make them 'healthy, wealthy and wise'?

Seriously though, what do you think his intentions are for the people?

Here's a nice summary of his intentions: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/12/_5_ways_many_americans_finances_will_take_a_hit_under_trump.html

$300,000 tax savings for the top 1% of *cough* earners. And that's before the crony awarding of contracts (Hey, Carrier! Didja save those jobs? Build some more airplanes we don't want, wouldja?) Plus what if there's a recession, which I think is likely, though I think it was likely no matter who got elected, the probability's probably gone up, esp. if they loose the banks again to loan mortgages to whoever has a pulse.

This US citizen now will look forward to another 4 years in the labor force until eligible for full SS (not that it's very much in the first place.) Just because the tGOP can. And the likes of the trumplodytes on this board are *still* talking about HRC. She doesn't matter - enjoy the fiscal pain you're guaranteed that YOU CAUSED.

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 08:35AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The immigration is a classic example because he said really controversial things with without any real intention to carry it through. He mentioned deportation squads and deporting millions of people. That was just rhetoric which worked on the basis that it was deeply divisive.

'Lock her up' became a rallying cry which worked because it's deeply divisive. He never intended to actually do it, he just used it for its ability to be controversial and get people whipped up into a frenzy.

Do you think he used decisiveness deliberately throughout the campaign?

Lock her up was a cry from common folk who seen her as above the law, I'd feel the same way and I can understand it, she colluded with the DOJ and AG as shown in the emails, that is not a level playing field. Given that the foundation on still under investigation by the FBI and congress, and her email scandal is still lingering, even as of today http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-clinton-emails-idUSKBN14G1M4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uveDGIMn7Uo (chaffetz talking about the investigations a month ago) Neither of us know what's going to happen or what the intention of the new cabinet is. We have to wait and see.

I do concede he shouldn't have said millions and millions will be deported. He should have stuck to illegals who've been involved in crime and said he'll create a process for other illegals with good records to become formal residents. He's come around to say that in the last few months but it doesn't excuse his initial choice of words. He's has been decisive on certain policies, business tax cuts, guns, vet support etc.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 08:44AM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Lock her up was a cry from common folk who seen her as above the law, I'd feel the same way and I can understand it, she colluded with the DOJ and AG as shown in the emails, that is not a level playing field. Given that the foundation on still under investigation by the FBI and congress, and her email scandal is still lingering, even as of today

I think you missed the question I asked.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Do you think he used decisiveness deliberately throughout the campaign?

HellSquirrel · 28-12-2016 08:50AM

Ah hells bells, this is the equivalent of Trump's Twit****. Argue with someone who keeps throwing up rehashed red herrings rather than the actual current problems.

So here's a list of current problems.

- Betsy DeVos (head of the Education Department). A fundamentalist Christian who wants to reform the schooling system altogether to "advance God's Kingdom". Schools have taken the place of Church as the centre of community life, particularly for children and this should be stopped. More local control of education, which, tragically, will result in many kids being taught absolute bollocks about evolution and other religiously inconvenient science.

Likely to - increase funding to Christian schools and remove it from state schools.
Ridiculously obvious issue - Separation of church and state.

Rex Tillerson (Sec. State). Exxon-Mobil chief exec with strong ties to Russia generally and Putin specifically. ExxonMobil also has a few billion worth of contracts with Moscow that can't go ahead until sanctions against Russia are lifted, which should probably take about a month or so. Much like Trump, his business has plants in many different countries (fifty-odd), and is currently trying to expand into Venezuela (supporting the Syrian government currently), Qatar, etc.

Likely to - push for better relations with Russia to open up those contracts.
Ridiculously obvious issue: Environmental issues, continued battle against climate science, also fcuking Putin again.

Ben Carson (Housing) This guy didn't want a position because he was afraid that his lack of knowledge would damage the administration. Takes position that he knows nothing about and is pretty apathetic about. His only major position is that desegregation (of poorer and richer citizens) is bad. The idea of that is that as much affordable housing should be built in more affluent areas as in poorer areas to give people a chance to move on and up. The whole pulling oneself up by the bootstraps thing. Nope. That's gotta go. Ironic that the views of the African-American pick work most strongly against racial minorities in the US.

Also, is this guy actually awake?

Likely to - work for increased income inequality (albeit probably accidentally rather than purposefully) by reducing and removing prospects for buying housing in more affluent areas. And bear in mind that this isn't about who gets the white picket fence, it's about access out of the cycle of poverty of poor schools, limited job opportunities, limited transport and crime.
Ridiculously obvious issue - This guy does not give a honey badger and, in fact, doesn't actually appear to know what he's doing or what the job entails.

Jeff Sessions (Attorney General) - Yeah, Mister "You should be careful what you say to white folks" Sessions. Specifically not Judge Sessions, mostly due to the previous.

General Mattis (Sec. Defense) - It's not even legal for this guy to take the position, ffs! I assume it will get through by being attached to something that has to pass (or already has), but dear god, Trump and his advisors are really just being assholes by now.

Steve Bannon (Chief Strategist) - This guy is a loudmouthed blowhard with no policy experience at all and only vitriol and alt-right lunacy to fall back on. Appears to have the common sense of an electrocuted lemur and also appears to be mostly in it for himself.

Yeah, I got a bit fast and loose on the last three, feel free to fill in what needs to be. You could not make this **** up, people, and this is what the Trumpers are trying to distract us from with rants about Clinton, Obama and meaniehead Democrats. These are Trump's picks (or at least Pence's picks). These are the problem. Ignore the Trumpeters about their bull****, because it is exactly the same tactic Trump has been using for months; we SAW him do it, we SAW people fall for it (and most of us fell for it more than once), let's not fall for it again just because it is slightly more subtle than a bull elephant mating with a semi.

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 08:51AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you missed the question I asked.

As in what? I'm not sure what you're asking.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decisiveness

His ability to make decisions quickly?

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 09:01AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Ah hells bells, this is the equivalent of Trump's Twit****. Argue with someone who keeps throwing up rehashed red herrings rather than the actual current problems.

So here's a list of current problems.

Ignore the Trumpeters about their bull****, because it is exactly the same tactic Trump has been using for months; we SAW him do it, we SAW people fall for it (and most of us fell for it more than once), let's not fall for it again just because it is slightly more subtle than a bull elephant mating with a semi.

It must be a shock that others have a different opinion than yours. There's no need to resort to name calling and hostility.

gosplan · 28-12-2016 09:13AM

Well said HellSquirrell.

I'm only checking this topic every week or so on boards now but can't believe how Trump backers still claim it's all OK because of something Hillary said/would have done etc.

They seem to have no other justification for a lot of what is happening.

I'm just wondering (given the republican majority in both houses, soon to be Supreme Court and the presidency) when HRC will stop being an excuse for worrying realities or clearly suspect behaviour.

I'm guessing it'll be when Trump gets in and picks a fight with China to justify his actions for the next few years.

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 09:17AM

I never get to ask questions so I'll try one.

What I don't get is why Trump supporters are labeled certain things and the left is deemed tolerant and progressive.

If that's the case then why is there so many fake hate hoaxes being exposed by local media daily daily, and why are they doing it?

The Texas family whose car and motorcycle were burned, and whose garage was spray-painted with "n----r lover", only to have his wife later reveal that her husband had hoaxed the community by doing it himself.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/23/denton-man-set-vehicles-ablaze-painted-racial-slur-garage-door-wife-says

The black, "white supremacist" arrested for the infamous burned-down black church which had "Vote Trump" written on it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fire-marshal-politics-motive-vote-trump-arson-44341228

South Philly graffiti -- "Black Bitch", "Trump Rules" -- arrest made, turns out to be black “white supremacist”:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/S-Jersey-man-arrested-in-post-election-vandalism-in-South-Philly.html?mobi=true

young lady who was arrested for fabricating a story about an attack by racists on a NYC subway while yelling "Donald Trump":

http://ijr.com/2016/12/757186-muslim-teen-caught-lying-about-trump-inspired-assault-gets-humiliating-punishment/

young lady from Ann Arbor who fabricated a terrifying tale of a Trump supporter threatening that he’d burn the hijab off of her if she didn’t take it off:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/ann-arbor-police-womans-story-about-being-force-to-remove-hijab-did-not-occur

University of Louisiana at Lafayette student who now admits she fabricated her claim that men wearing Trump hats attacked her, knocked her down, and stole her headscarf:
http://klfy.com/2016/11/10/lafayette-pd-ul-student-made-up-story-about-attack-stolen-hijab/

the brown "white supremacist" arrested for writing KKK and swastikas at Nassau community college:

http://patch.com/new-york/gardencity/man-who-drew-swastikas-across-nassau-community-college-arrested-police

the Bowling Green student who was arrested after falsely claiming she was attacked and taunted with racial slurs by MAGA-gear wearing Trump supporters:

http://www.wtol.com/story/33736486/bgsu-student-charged-after-reporting-fake-assault

another student at BGSU who fabricated a story about a robbery and derogatory slur :

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2016/11/19/BGSU-Second-report-of-slur-attack-false-too.html

a black man in Malden (Boston area) who claimed he was forced to run for his life after being threatened with lynching, chased, and told that "It’s Trump country now", but then admitted he fabricated the story:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/11/man_admits_to_faking_hate_crime_in_malden

the man who hung a nazi flag in SF (incidentally, across the street from his neighbors whose family members were Holocaust victims), only to later explain he was making an anti-Trump political statement:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-Francisco-homeowner-s-Nazi-flag-protest-of-10605083.php

the "courageous" throat-punching, racist-stomping woman who claimed to have bashed the fash only to be inexplicably handcuffed for her trouble, but who police say fabricated the incident:

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/11/umpd-not-involved-in-handcuffed-university-student

the woman who was supposedly threatened at a gas station with a gun by Trump supporters, but who never contacted police and has now deleted her accusation:

http://www.phillyvoice.com/police-no-official-report-ugly-racial-incident-del-gas-station/

Williams College students who admitted they wrote KKK graffiti and dumped fake blood in a church to “bring attention to the effects of the presidential election”:

http://williamsrecord.com/2016/11/16/two-students-admit-to-vandalizing-griffin-hall-on-saturday/

bisexual North Park University student who school says fabricated hateful pro-Trump messages:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/north-park-fabricated-notes-402556366.html

an Elon University hate message that received national attention "Bye bye latinos hasta la vista" but was later revealed to be written by a Latino student who was upset about the results of the election and wrote the message as a "satirical commentary":

http://www.elonnewsnetwork.com/article/2016/11/note-found-whiteboard-kivette-bye-bye-latinos

these Wellesley college kids, accused of screaming racist and homophobic slurs, but were cleared of charges when it was determined they were only yelling "Make America Great Again" -- incident took place in front of "Harambee House"

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/12/19/pro-trump-babson-students-cleared-wellesley-victory-incident/RsIfPd27sNxqiXvnwOrhTJ/story.html

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 09:24AM

gosplan wrote: »

I'm only checking this topic every week or so on boards now but can't believe how Trump backers still claim it's all OK because of something Hillary said/would have done etc.

They seem to have no other justification for a lot of what is happening.

He's not even in office yet. I previously said I have questions over some of his cabinet picks, the majority I have no problem with.

Obama's cabinet was heavily influenced by Citigroup bank and I don't recall such outrage, so I'm willing to at least wait and see what happens.

HellSquirrel · 28-12-2016 09:32AM

gosplan wrote: »

Well said HellSquirrell.

I'm only checking this topic every week or so on boards now but can't believe how Trump backers still claim it's all OK because of something Hillary said/would have done etc.

They seem to have no other justification for a lot of what is happening.

I'm just wondering (given the republican majority in both houses, soon to be Supreme Court and the presidency) when HRC will stop being an excuse for worrying realities or clearly suspect behaviour.

I'm guessing it'll be when Trump gets in and picks a fight with China to justify his actions for the next few years.

Unfortunately, it's because most of them really can't defend him either, but cannot bear to admit that maybe the democrats were safer hands than their guy. He was a massive protest vote and unfortunately, he won out of it.

It is deeply cowardly to try use HRC as an excuse now, but they're going to keep doing it. I honestly think that the best thing to do is to ignore the attempts to deflect and move people onto silly issues (yes, left-wing people commit crimes too, Hank Scorpio, why is this shocking?) and focus on the actually dangerous stuff going on, like his cabinet picks.

Edit: And some of the points brought up do deserve to be looked at. They just don't deserve to be used as constant "oh but look here!" when the topic is the nut soon to be president.

Hank Scorpio · 28-12-2016 09:43AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's because most of them really can't defend him either, but cannot bear to admit that maybe the democrats were safer hands than their guy. He was a massive protest vote and unfortunately, he won out of it.

It is deeply cowardly to try use HRC as an excuse now, but they're going to keep doing it. I honestly think that the best thing to do is to ignore the attempts to deflect and move people onto silly issues (yes, left-wing people commit crimes too, Hank Scorpio, why is this shocking?) and focus on the actually dangerous stuff going on, like his cabinet picks.

The point about the fake hoax stories is to combat all the words being thrown at Trump supporters on this thread, that perhaps the right aren't the ones bringing race into everything all the time.

On Trump how do you know what's going to happen? You're talking like a nuke has just gone off in NYC and using it as a justification as to why the democrats were the better choice and Trump supporters can't even defend him anymore. All that is on your part is pure speculation and a means to create some kind of hysteria that the world is falling. The man hasn't even been swore in yet, this end of the world garbage needs to stop. Feel free to criticize his cabinet picks that is fair game, but to say Trump supporters would now prefer Democrats and all their corruption/race-baiting with HRC running the show is just honestly hysterical.

How would you have felt if you known Citigroup bank was emailing shortlists to Podesta to pick Obama's cabinet prior to the 2008 election? Would that bother you as much as Trump picking Tillerson for e.g.?

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 09:45AM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

As in what? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Divisiveness. I missed autocorrect changing it to decisiveness. It was the topic of discussion between us for a number of posts.

Do you think he used divisiveness deliberately throughout his campaign.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 09:51AM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

What I don't get is why Trump supporters are labeled certain things and the left is deemed tolerant and progressive.

Trump's supporters are labeled low information voters because that term describes them well.

Hank Scorpio wrote:

If that's the case then why is there so many fake hate hoaxes being exposed by local media daily daily, and why are they doing it?

If someone makes up fake news, it's a bad thing. There's a difference in how these things are treated though. Trump's supporters are a lot more likely to scoff at the idea of fake news - which is understandable as it benefited their candidate.
Fake news should be discouraged an I would discourage it amongst my own side too. I doubt trump supporters are on for doing anything to disturb the platform their guy is using to such great effect.

dudara · 28-12-2016 09:52AM

You only have read Trump's tweets, written by the man himself, to be concerned about him. If you watched the debates, you'd have seem him unable to construct more than a few coherent thoughts. There's no doubt in my mind that he's the most inept person to assume the position ever (and that's after George Bush).

What is interesting to me, and become more interesting by the day, is that Trump does not play by the rules. And by not doing so, he's actually exposing a lot of Washington convention as being just that. Convention. Not law, but convention. It will be interesting if the other branches of government and politicos finally wake up and realise that they can also start doing the same. so far, they still appear to be hanging onto convention.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 09:55AM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

On Trump how do you know what's going to happen?

Nobody knows what's going to happen except that trump will work tirelessly for his own benefit.

Change is wants by its of people but shouldn't you know what you want and have established an agreement with a politician before they take power?

For instance, Do you claim to know any trump will do?

El_Duderino 09 · 28-12-2016 10:00AM

dudara wrote:

What is interesting to me, and become more interesting by the day, is that Trump does not play by the rules. And by not doing so, he's actually exposing a lot of Washington convention as being just that. Convention. Not law, but convention. It will be interesting if the other branches of government and politicos finally wake up and realise that they can also start doing the same. so far, they still appear to be hanging onto convention.

Some of the convention is just common decency such as blind trusts to avoid conflicts of interest. It didn't have to be law because its obvious. For most people POTUS is the biggest role of their lives and it actually means something.
For trump the presidency is just another part of his businesses. He hasn't come to fix anything. Beyond doing what's necessary to be re-elected, the rest of what he does will be for his own benefit

El Presidente Trump

Comments