Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

El Presidente Trump

1…231232234236237…276

Comments

  • #6992
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think he did honestly. He played strongly off radical Islam, but that is a real world problem. To purposely be divisive and alienate yourself from minorities isn't smart Politics as far as vote tallies go. He's certainly said stupid things which certain segments of people rightfully felt offended by, but I think he was always trying to refer to illegals, even if it came out badly.


  • #6993
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    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.

    OK.

    Wait and see.

    You can understand however (without and reference to other parties) why some find it worrying that the new champion of marginalised middle America is so far just cutting taxes for the super rich and appointing a bunch of super rich to his cabinet. This is before we get into it paying taxes, being positive about going bankrupt, manufacturing his products abroad and importing foreign-manufactured raw materials.

    Technically we all HAVE to 'wait and see'

    But you can forgive us for being skeptical in the meantime.

    Ultimately I think the public row with HRC will be replaced by a public row with China. Trump knows how to work the demographics to keep his approval rating ticking over.

    Ultimately, he may do some good. He may do lots of good. He could even be the greatest president ever. We don't know, there are worrying signs but we don't know.

    But by continually bringing up the left, the democrats, HRC and Obama, you're falling for the worst of it - the con that got him over the line. None of the above are relevant now, even the GOP is irrelevant to Trump. They're delighted to be clinging onto his coat tails and to maybe have his ear on some issues but he has no need of them. He's reshaped the political landscape and he stands atop of it with no-one else even in the frame.

    So start talking about Trump and lose the left/right partisan nonsense.

    The left is irrelevant


  • #6994
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    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.
    Accusing people of talking about fake news stories when the story is blatantly not fake is not an honest argument.
    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.
    No, I am talking about WHAT HE AND HIS CABINET HAVE SAID THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

    This is not scaremongering. This is what they have SAID and DONE already. This is absolutely legitimate to talk about. And no matter how much **** you throw, I will continue to talk about them, so I'm afraid you need better distractions to fling.

    And yeah, the democrats actually were a better shot this time. -Harambe- would have been a better choice. This isn't hysteria, if you go back and read my posts, you will see I have talked about and quoted various cabinet picks (and the idiot in chief himself). Not makey-up bull**** that you want me to be talking about, what they themselves actually support. No amount of trying to delegitimise what I'm saying as scaremongering will change that and anyone who looks this up will see that despite your words.
    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,
    Thank you, that is what I am doing and I am so pleased to have your permission.
    but to say Trump supporters would now prefer Democrats and all their corruption/race-baiting with HRC running the show is just honestly hysterical.
    I suspect some do. And that you actually suggest that the Democrats are doing the race-baiting after the last nine months is either downright dishonest or actually delusional.
    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.?
    Well, Michael Froman was, who is an executive of Citigroup. The bank itself was not emailing shortlists. He was on the transition team, quite openly, and the job of the transition team is to help choose the cabinet. I cannot be sure if there was corruption or not, but so far it does not appear to be as blatant as what's going on at the moment. I could also point to Goldman Sachs, of which there are three so far in the transition team.

    And if you would read my posts, my issues are more the potential conflict of interests. It is not -just- that Tillerson is ExxonMobil, it's his massive held-up investments in Russia and his close alliance with Putin that is bothering me. As you would know. If you would read my posts fairly and just try really hard not to twist them.


  • #6995
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Trump's supporters are labeled low information voters because that term describes them well.

    That's just another way of calling them stupid and it's ignorant on your part to say that to push an agenda. Ignorant, but not unexpected.

    54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, and 45% of female college graduates.

    Would you describe the 90% of the Black voters that voted for Hillary as low information voters too?


  • #6996
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,210 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    I don't think he did honestly. He played strongly off radical Islam, but that is a real world problem. To purposely be divisive and alienate yourself from minorities isn't smart Politics as far as vote tallies go. He's certainly said stupid things which certain segments of people rightfully felt offended by, but I think he was always trying to refer to illegals, even if it came out badly.

    Ah I thought you were making an honest evaluation of events rather than cheerleading.

    The junk he spoke about locking up Hillary was just for the controversy as was the deportation squads. Banning Muslims was purely to divide his supporters and the low information voters from the rest.

    You say it's not smart to alienate minorities which is usually true enough but you're completely missing the fact that he divided enough people to win. So in this case it was smart and obviously detrimental to the country.

    You seriously don't think he used divisiveness deliberately? You missed the whole performance if that's the case


  • Advertisement
  • #6997
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

    You seriously don't think he used divisiveness deliberately? You missed the whole performance if that's the case

    If he did, he beat the left at their own game.

    Hands up, don't shoot!


  • #6998
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,210 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    That's just another way of calling them stupid and it's ignorant on your part to say that to push an agenda. Ignorant, but not unexpected.

    Oh yes. Low information voters is the PC term for stupid people. They were very much his core demographic. If definitely shouldn't be unexpected. They were his target audience since the very beginning.

    He never made a complicated argument in the whole campaign and delivered a reality TV style performance to keep the low information voters on side. Fake news doesn't have a conscience. It started off being aimed at everyone e but it quickly evolved to target low information voters and they tended to prefer fake news about Hillary.
    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, and 45% of female college graduates.

    That's not unexpected, is it? Doesn't he side who wants to cut taxes usually win the majority of higher income voters? The republicans usually end up with great support among the wealthiest
    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    Would you describe the 90% of the Black voters that voted for Hillary as low information voters too?

    Don't know enough about the demographic. Would you like me to make something up? What would be your understanding of those voters?


  • #6999
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,210 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    If he did, he beat the left at their own game.

    Have you stopped chatting in exchange for cheerleading?


  • #7000
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    That's just another way of calling them stupid and it's ignorant on your part to say that to push an agenda. Ignorant, but not unexpected.

    54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, and 45% of female college graduates.

    Would you describe the 90% of the Black voters that voted for Hillary as low information voters too?

    You're right.

    Simply referring to people as deplorables or low information voters is disrespectful, lazy and careless.

    Trump's victory was really the protest of middle America against the establishment.

    The Democrats ducked up. The republicians did too but they got lucky.


  • #7001
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    gosplan wrote: »
    You're right.

    Simply referring to people as deplorables or low information voters is disrespectful, lazy and careless.

    Trump's victory was really the protest of middle America against the establishment.

    The Democrats ducked up. The republicians did too but they got lucky.

    Just like Brexit was about 'sticking it to the establishment' by following people that are the epitome of the establishment.

    There's nothing wrong in admitting you were fooled if you voted for Trump believing he would bring change to Washington. A cabinet filled with bankers, lobbyists,... is no change at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #7002
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Have you stopped chatting in exchange for cheerleading?

    You are trying to make the point of Trump saying something like he's going to hire a special prosecutor to look into the email and foundation scandal as some kind of forbidden fruit, it's politics. The point of divisiveness can be used in just about any situation if that's your take on it, HRC going on about the basket of deplorable's for example and her voters cheering it. Was the trump tape talking in private not a way to divide Woman voters? ( It didn't work. ) Her support of BLM, who are an anti white / cop hate group.

    You are trying to portray your opinions on the election as smarter for some reason, and the people who voted for Trump as dumb. That is purely ignorance. In the educated fields the votes were pretty much even, and in the higher earning bracket Trump also had more voters, but it was pretty even overall between each wage bracket. The only area HRC excelled was black voters who for the most part come from lower wage and less educated backgrounds.

    Your dismissive and arrogant tone of "You disagree therefore you're dumb" is exactly the reason why Trump won.


  • #7003
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    You are trying to portray your opinions on the election as smarter for some reason, and the people who voted for Trump as dumb. That is purely ignorance. In the educated fields the votes were pretty much even, and in the higher earning bracket Trump also had more voters, but it was pretty even overall between each wage bracket. The only area HRC excelled was black voters who for the most part come from lower wage and educated backgrounds.

    Your dismissive and arrogant tone of "I know better" are exactly the reason why Trump won.

    Except that that is -another- goddam lie.
    College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%)
    Without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%.

    This is actually a wide margin, the widest since 1980.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

    Does this make people without degrees dumb? No, it doesn't. I still stand by that voting for Trump was a damn stupid thing to do though.


  • #7004
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Yes you're right. My figures were for Whites only.

    You're calling me a liar now because HRC said half of Trump supporters were irredeemable now instead of all? That's petty.


  • #7005
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Yes you're right. My figures were for Whites only.

    You're calling me a liar now because HRC said half of Trump supporters were irredeemable now instead of all? That's petty.

    No, I was calling you a liar (actually, I didn't, but for the sake of argument) for outright denying something that was bloody obvious and had been reported on numerous times for a petty point while calling other people dismissive and arrogant for not respecting the facts that you had literally just made up.

    Is that clear enough?

    I have not mentioned Clinton in pages (you stopped answering me on that), so really, bringing that back up to accuse me of ..

    This is actually ridiculous. Anyone reading the last few posts can see exactly what you're up to and it is frankly dishonest. I called your lie out for being a lie*. Not for anything to do with HRC. As you very well know.


    *By the way, admitting you were incorrect (and "voters" does not just mean "white voters") and immediately following it up with an accusation against a complete strawman to claim your innocence (or at least that you're being victimised) is extraordinary. Well..done?


  • #7006
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    No, I was calling you a liar for outright denying something that was bloody obvious and had been reported on numerous times for a petty point while calling other people dismissive and arrogant for not respecting the facts that you had literally just made up.

    Is that clear enough?

    I have not mentioned Clinton in pages (you stopped answering me on that), so really, bringing that back up to accuse me of ..

    This is actually ridiculous. Anyone reading the last few posts can see exactly what you're up to and it is frankly dishonest. I called you a liar for the lie. Not for anything to do with HRC. As you very well know.

    Outright denying what? I have no idea what you're talking about.

    With every reply I just get asked more and more questions sometimes it's hard to keep track.

    The deplorable thing it doesn't matter how many she said, it was the message and how it resonated. Don't be so pedantic.


  • #7007
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Outright denying what? I have no idea what you're talking about.

    With every reply I just get asked more and more questions sometimes it's hard to keep track.

    The deplorable thing it doesn't matter how many she said, it was the message. Don't be so pedantic.

    Oh my god, the topic moved on. You started that rubbish, deal with it. We were talking most recently about your bizarre (and utterly, blatantly, untrue) comment about how educated voters were split evenly between Clinton and Trump. Which they were not. Which you got called on. You then tried to say that it was only White voters you were talking about, because insinuating that White voters are representative of all voters is a totally legit position when there was obviously a race gap between votes as well.

    You admitted that you had been dishonestly representing your point (I would be kinder and inclined to believe it was just a mistake if it wasn't for what followed) and then followed it up immediately with offended complaining that you were being called a liar for something to do with HRC which was equally and absolutely blatantly not the case, the lie in question was the voter education business, which was made very clear.

    I've had sane debates with you before. I have no idea what you're on at the moment though, so I'm calling this crap quits. I want to focus on the actual issues, I do not want to get pulled into the mire of fact-checking dishonest claims and seeing the goalposts fly around like a game of fecking quidditch.


  • #7008
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,210 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    The point of divisiveness can be used in just about any situation if that's your take on it, HRC going on about the basket of deplorable's for example and her voters cheering it. Was the trump tape talking in private not a way to divide Woman voters? ( It didn't work. )

    It did work. You're only looking from the point of view of the ones he used to achieve the division. Lots of people loved the idea that the President did 'locker room talk'. It divided his supporters from the rest. He didn't try to win them with facts and real promises. He conned them precisely because they're low information people in general - 'thick' in old money. Once he had them onside he didn't need to get involved in normal politics like making pledges voters expect him to keep. Cognitive dissonance would do the work for him.

    Remember when he proposed the ban on Muslims? Obviously he was never going to do it but you had lots of people who supported the idea and made arguments to support it. I'm sure those people would never have thought banning Muslims was a good idea if trump hadn't proposed it, and I'm sure they do the still hold the opinion that banning Muslims is a good idea.

    He just used to divide his supporters away from the rest and hoped that was enough to win -which clearly it was.
    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    You are trying to portray your opinions on the election as smarter for some reason, and the people who voted for Trump as dumb. That is purely ignorance. In the educated fields the votes were pretty much even, and in the higher earning bracket Trump also had more voters, but it was pretty even overall between each wage bracket. The only area HRC excelled was black voters who for the most part come from lower wage and less educated backgrounds.

    Oh here. If you have a problem with trump targeting low information voters, then take it up with him. Should we ignore the demographic he aimed for just because they don't like being identified in a way that hurts their fee-fees?

    I don't know if you're in the us or if you voted. If you did vote for trump then clearly you voted the same way as the low information voters. Maybe you have very clever reasons indeed, but it doesn't change any of the facts. Those include trump targeting low information voters and using reality TV style performances.

    People voted for a guy with no discernible values after a lifetime in the public eye. People who voted for trump don't even know what they opted for. How low information can you get?
    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    Your dismissive and arrogant tone of "You disagree therefore you're dumb" is exactly the reason why Trump won.

    I think m you're probably right on this point. Trump set the bar for political campaign at the reality TV audience. I've no idea how to communicate complicated ideas in that format. It's easy to communicate low information ideas to low information voters in 140 characters. I've no idea where politics will go from there. Will low information voters be the lowest common denominator from here on? Will all candidates have to say racist things to let the low information voters know they're being considered? Maybe.

    Are you in any way happy about the way the campaigns went? Wouldn't it be better if people at least knew some of the things he intends to do as president?


  • #7009
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    Oh my god, the topic moved on. You started that rubbish, deal with it. We were talking most recently about your bizarre (and utterly, blatantly, untrue) comment about how educated voters were split evenly between Clinton and Trump. Which they were not. Which you got called on. You then tried to say that it was only White voters you were talking about, because insinuating that White voters are representative of all voters is a totally legit position when there was obviously a race gap between votes as well.

    You admitted that you had been dishonestly representing your point (I would be kinder and inclined to believe it was just a mistake if it wasn't for what followed) and then followed it up immediately with offended complaining that you were being called a liar for something to do with HRC which was equally and absolutely blatantly not the case, the lie in question was the voter education business, which was made very clear.

    I've had sane debates with you before. I have no idea what you're on at the moment though, so I'm calling this crap quits. I want to focus on the actual issues, I do not want to get pulled into the mire of fact-checking dishonest claims and seeing the goalposts fly around like a game of fecking quidditch.

    I didn't say she specially called all Trump supporters deplorable and irredeemable, you're the one who tried to hold it against me being pedantic, it was still millions of people she labeled regardless. The point was it resonated and backfired badly on her campaign, I mentioned it because one poster said Trump managed to offend aspects of society while Hillary didn't.

    Believe it or not, it was an honest mistake about the white voters. The guardian had it worded weirdly.


  • #7010
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    It's going to be fascinating watching Trump in office. Predictions? Israel gets him to rubber stamp whatever it wants; Putin speeds up his covert aggressions to dismantle NATO; China acts more aggressively in South China Sea; trade war with China; US debt issues emerge; Obamacare repealed as Republican congress schools Trump in politics; arch conservatives appointed to SC; Trump overwhelmed and is offered a decent way out by GOP before impeachment.


  • #7011
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    It did work. You're only looking from the point of view of the ones he used to achieve the division. Lots of people loved the idea that the President did 'locker room talk'. It divided his supporters from the rest. He didn't try to win them with facts and real promises. He conned them precisely because they're low information people in general - 'thick' in old money. Once he had them onside he didn't need to get involved in normal politics like making pledges voters expect him to keep. Cognitive dissonance would do the work for him.

    Remember when he proposed the ban on Muslims? Obviously he was never going to do it but you had lots of people who supported the idea and made arguments to support it. I'm sure those people would never have thought banning Muslims was a good idea if trump hadn't proposed it, and I'm sure they do the still hold the opinion that banning Muslims is a good idea.

    He just used to divide his supporters away from the rest and hoped that was enough to win -which clearly it was.



    Oh here. If you have a problem with trump targeting low information voters, then take it up with him. Should we ignore the demographic he aimed for just because they don't like being identified in a way that hurts their fee-fees?

    I don't know if you're in the us or if you voted. If you did vote for trump then clearly you voted the same way as the low information voters. Maybe you have very clever reasons indeed, but it doesn't change any of the facts. Those include trump targeting low information voters and using reality TV style performances.

    People voted for a guy with no discernible values after a lifetime in the public eye. People who voted for trump don't even know what they opted for. How low information can you get?



    I think m you're probably right on this point. Trump set the bar for political campaign at the reality TV audience. I've no idea how to communicate complicated ideas in that format. It's easy to communicate low information ideas to low information voters in 140 characters. I've no idea where politics will go from there. Will low information voters be the lowest common denominator from here on? Will all candidates have to say racist things to let the low information voters know they're being considered? Maybe.

    Are you in any way happy about the way the campaigns went? Wouldn't it be better if people at least knew some of the things he intends to do as president?

    Why leave out black lives matter when talking about divisiveness, a group HRC openly met with and supported during her campaign?

    Is it because it doesn't suit your narrative?



  • Advertisement
  • #7012
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Why leave out black lives matter when talking about divisiveness, a group HRC openly met with and supported during her campaign?


    Oh, there she is again.


  • #7013
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,210 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    Why leave out black lives matter when talking about divisiveness, a group HRC openly met with and supported during her campaign?

    Oh sure include black lives matter. It's important to include them if you want to reduce it to whataboutery.

    This isn't really a response to anything I said in the previous post though


  • #7014
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    I didn't say she specially called all Trump supporters deplorable and irredeemable, you're the only who tried to hold it against me being pedantic, it was still millions of people she labeled regardless. The point was it resonated and backfired badly on her campaign, I mentioned it because one poster said Trump managed to offend aspects of society while Hillary didn't.

    Believe it or not, it was an honest mistake about the white voters. The guardian had it worded weirdly.

    Okay, I am willing to believe it was an honest mistake. But why you had to jump back several pages for an argument to throw back rather than stay on the topic I don't know. Clinton's deplorables comment isn't the hill I want to die on, although I will correct the misapprehension that she was either calling all Americans deplorable or all Trump supporters, mostly because the very next paragraph proves this a false representation. That isn't being pedantic. I do find it weird and annoying that Clinton's one mis-step acted strongly against her while Trump's thousand and one petty lunacies do not, no matter what he says. But again, that is now irrelevant. As is Clinton. Trump won, can we go back to focusing on his presidency now?


  • #7015
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Oh sure include black lives matter. It's important to include them if you want to reduce it to whataboutery.

    This isn't really a response to anything I said in the previous post though

    I don't see why I should reply when you chose to ignore my mention of a hate group supported by HRC when talking on the topic of divisiveness. It wouldn't be to garner votes would it?


  • #7016
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    Okay, I am willing to believe it was an honest mistake. But why you had to jump back several pages for an argument to throw back rather than stay on the topic I don't know. Clinton's deplorables comment isn't the hill I want to die on, although I will correct the misapprehension that she was either calling all Americans deplorable or all Trump supporters, mostly because the very next paragraph proves this a false representation. That isn't being pedantic. I do find it weird and annoying that Clinton's one mis-step acted strongly against her while Trump's thousand and one petty lunacies do not, no matter what he says. But again, that is now irrelevant. As is Clinton. Trump won, can we go back to focusing on his presidency now?

    No worries. I'll be back this evening to argue some more. ;)


  • #7017
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    gosplan wrote: »
    Oh, there she is again.

    Yup. Playing them like a fiddle.



  • #7018
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,210 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    I don't see why I should reply when you chose to ignore my mention of a hate group supported by HRC when talking on the topic of divisiveness. It wouldn't be to garner votes would it?

    I just said to include them if you need them for whataboutery.
    I didn't follow much about BLM because there was too much noise to know anything about them. I don't now if they were a hate group or not. I don't suppose they were high information voters. They were also a special interest group so I'm not sure how analogous they are to trump's use of division.

    As I keep pointing out, he used divisiveness to carve out his winning margin. No need for facts when you have the low information folks whipped up into a frenzy.

    He might have said things like banning Muslims or deportation squads. They weren't meant to be serious campaign pledges. They were just divisive rhetoric to shore up his likely voters


  • #7019
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Still pointing to Hillary I see, even when she is no longer relevant in the debate.


  • #7020
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Your stance is completely hypocritical, you talk about Trump using divisiveness to garner votes yet admit you know nothing about BLM supported by democrats, a group which has resulted in the death of several police officers. If you know nothing about BLM then you'd know nothing about about the hands up don't shoot lie, a lie which was spread across several mainstream liberal media sites creating more racial tension than Trump could ever fester. Then there's Hillary shouting the homophobic, sexist lines at every opportunity. This term you keep referring holds absolutely zero ground. Politicians say things to garner votes, I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that.

    I'd imagine the majority of the people who voted for Trump regardless of their background did so because they felt Hillary Clinton was above the law and were fed up of the corruption that has plagued her and her Husband for decades, and they'd be right, her colluding with the AG and the DOJ during her email hearings is proof of that. If someone is under FBI investigation during an election it doesn't take a genius to figure out that isn't a good thing. If you want to blame something, blame Wikileaks for exposing the corruption. That is at least an argument I can entertain .

    At the end of the day, there's racists and idiots on both sides. You continuously claim stupid voters is the reason Trump won, perhaps you should start examining the reasons why Hillary lost. Kellyanne Conway made her campaign team look like fools in the regard of strategy and choice of states to rally in. I would certainty not go up to a laborer and point my nose at them because I spent 4 years at college a decade ago, such is your tone towards the average Trump supporter.

    Done replying now and in future I'll try to not to drag HRC into things as I'm sure there's plenty of people on this thread who are frothing to attack Trump even before he gets into office. It would help if people would stop referring to the election to avoid this.


  • Advertisement
  • #7021
    Renegade Mechanic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,928 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    I see El Dude still mumbling away about "low information voters".

    Well, when I see a "trumplodyte" tell a holocaust survivor to check their white male privilege, or a "trumpeter" have a panic attack and fear for their life because someone chalked "Clinton" on their college steps, I'll believe that the very lowest information voter under Trump is more of a dribbling moron than your average Hillary supporter. Until then, the "trumpeters" remain smarter by a hair :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement