**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

See bolded. Alternative facts.

If everyone hates his ideas so much....how did he become President??

I didn't say everyone. But where are all the people marching in support of the ban? If it were popular and people really wanted it, why aren't they vocal about it like the opposition is?

It also seems quite likely that, like so many Trumpers have said, they believed he should be taken seriously but not literally. I think a lot of them never thought he would go through with a lot of his crazier sounding ideas. Now they're seeing the light.

[BananaStand]

It also seems quite likely that, like so many Trumpers have said, they believed he should be taken seriously but not literally. I think a lot of them never thought he would go through with a lot of his crazier sounding ideas. Now they're seeing the light.

You could probably say that in regards to his statements regarding punishment for women who get abortions. That was an off the cuff statement that was clearly not well thought out. And most people believe that his pro-life stance is mostly just lip-service to the evangelical base.

But if you thought this guy wasn't gonna come out gun's blazin in regards to immigration and national security.....you probably spend too much time with your face on a bong.

[Poopadoop]

You could probably say that in regards to his statements regarding punishment for women who get abortions. That was an off the cuff statement that was clearly not well thought out. And most people believe that his pro-life stance is mostly just lip-service to the evangelical base.

But if you thought this guy wasn't gonna come out gun's blazin in regards to immigration and national security.....you probably spend too much time with your face on a bong.

I don't spend any time with my face in a bong. So fuck off with the ad hominen shit already.

How should people know which of his statements are meant to be serious and which aren't? Not everyone has the clear insight into his mind that you appear to have. Most of us just go by whatever shit comes out of his mouth.

[BananaStand]

I don't spend any time with my face in a bong. So fuck off with the ad hominen shit already..

Relax, don't take hyperbole so personally.

How should people know which of his statements are meant to be serious and which aren't? Not everyone has the clear insight into his mind that you appear to have. Most of us just go by whatever shit comes out of his mouth.

I don't know what to tell you here except to just use common sense. If it's ambiguous to you which issues Donald Trump is passionate about, then you probably aren't paying enough attention. And I really think you're overblowing the number of people who said "aaah he's not serious about that". I'm pretty sure most of his supporters voted for him because they believe he's a 'straight talker' who says what he means and means what he says.

It sounds like you're trying to say that Trump got elected by people who thought he was full of shit, but thought Hillary was full of more shit. Sure that's a slice of the pie, but where are you getting this idea that the majority of people thought Trump would do a 180 on all of this promises?

[Poopadoop]

Relax, don't take hyperbole so personally.

Stick to the argument and don't be insulting and I promise I won't tell you to fuck off again.

I don't know what to tell you here except to just use common sense. If it's ambiguous to you which issues Donald Trump is passionate about, then you probably aren't paying enough attention. And I really think you're overblowing the number of people who said "aaah he's not serious about that". I'm pretty sure most of his supporters voted for him because they believe he's a 'straight talker' who says what he means and means what he says.

There's a difference between saying bombastic things and meaning them, and saying bombastic things for effect.

No-one who's been paying attention can seriously believe Trump means everything the says. It's not just about using 'common sense' to parse out when he's sincere from when he's not. If that were true, none of his supporters would be upset that he's giving Hillary a pass. Obviously some of them believed that 'lock her up' stuff was sincere.

Basically, you're trying to let Trump have his cake and eat it too. He can declare anything and if he follows through with it, he's keeping a promise. If he doesn't, well, no-one with common sense would think he really meant that particular thing to be taken seriously.

It's not the public's job to try to decode when to take a president seriously or not. It'd be so much easier for him to just say what he means, don't you think?

It sounds like you're trying to say that Trump got elected by people who thought he was full of shit, but thought Hillary was full of more shit. Sure that's a slice of the pie, but where are you getting this idea that the majority of people thought Trump would do a 180 on all of this promises?

You're making up things I never said, or at the very least exaggerating my meaning to the point of absurdity.

Until you start arguing with what I actually say, this isn't going to go anywhere.

[BananaStand]

Until you start arguing with what I actually say, this isn't going to go anywhere.

Well excuse me if I just don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference between candidate Trump and President Trump. Welcome to American politics. I don't see why that shocks or offends anyone. It happened plenty with all 44 previous presidents, so why is it such a crime when Trump does it too.

It's merely a symptom of prioritizing an infinite agenda. A problem faced by every president, ever.

No-one who's been paying attention can seriously believe Trump means everything the says. It's not just about using 'common sense' to parse out when he's sincere from when he's not. If that were true, none of his supporters would be upset that he's giving Hillary a pass. Obviously some of them believed that 'lock her up' stuff was sincere.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. If anyone is having their cake and eating it too, it's the folks trying to push this narrative that impugns Trump for not doing everything he said, exactly the way he said it. They want a moderate president, but they criticize Trump for being moderate.

Obama promised to end wars in the middle east. We're still there. He promised to close Gitmo, it's still open. He promised comprehensive health care reform. It was written in sand, and is poised to be washed away by the tide in the next 6 months. Obama made progress on all of those things, but clearly fell short of the goal.

This is the liberal bias. Obama can show partial results, or make excuses, or blame republicans. Trump is afforded no such luxuries. It seems that it's 'all or nothing'. He promised a muslim immigration ban. He landed on a 3 month pause with the 7 most dangerous countries so as to improve vetting.

He promised to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants. Right now he's focused on stopping new illegal immigration, and clearing out dangerous criminals from among those already here. After that, if he his policy takes a humanitarian turn towards amnesty for the remaining however many "law-abiding" immigrants, are you really gonna roast the guy for being dishonest??

He promised to go after Hillary. Upon being elected, he may have decided he had better things to do. You think that makes him dishonest? It's like you're saying that two boxers who fight in a ring, should also be full of hate and want to fight when they see each other in the street.

If you don't recognize that there are going to be differences between candidates on campaigns, and elected officials serving in office, even when those two are physically teh same person, then you're just not living in reality man.

I think you're illustrating the stubborn intolerance of the liberal side. They seem to believe that when a candidate is elected, that he then gets to implement his entire platform with impunity. They believe that whoever is president gets to do what he wants...because he won. Obama famously stated that "elections have consequences" and that's how he ran his presidency, and it's a big reason why he was so ineffective once his party lost control of congress. It's why he has a dizzying record number of Executive Orders under his name, and so many of his primary accomplishments are written in sand.

you see it when democratic lawmakers get on the house floor and rail against republicans for not having a ready-to-go healthcare bill to replace Obamacare. Well....maybe they want some input from the other side. Maybe they're willing to compromise. Maybe they realize that elected officials need to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted from them

If Trump decides to let Hillary off the hook, why should that impugn his credibility? He's taking a position that is popular among ALL americans. Just because it pisses off a sliver of the base that voted for him, doesn't mean he's being a bad president, or a phony candidate by adjusting his position.

or, even if his position is unchanged, that doesn't mean he's obligated to act. Again, he's faced with the problem of prioritizing an infinite agenda. That means there's gonna be some stuff at the end of the list that doesn't get done.

[Poopadoop]

Well excuse me if I just don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference between candidate Trump and President Trump. Welcome to American politics. I don't see why that shocks or offends anyone. It happened plenty with all 44 previous presidents, so why is it such a crime when Trump does it too.

It's merely a symptom of prioritizing an infinite agenda. A problem faced by every president, ever.


You can't please all of the people all of the time. If anyone is having their cake and eating it too, it's the folks trying to push this narrative that impugns Trump for not doing everything he said, exactly the way he said it. They want a moderate president, but they criticize Trump for being moderate.

Obama promised to end wars in the middle east. We're still there. He promised to close Gitmo, it's still open. He promised comprehensive health care reform. It was written in sand, and is poised to be washed away by the tide in the next 6 months. Obama made progress on all of those things, but clearly fell short of the goal.

This is the liberal bias. Obama can show partial results, or make excuses, or blame republicans. Trump is afforded no such luxuries. It seems that it's 'all or nothing'. He promised a muslim immigration ban. He landed on a 3 month pause with the 7 most dangerous countries so as to improve vetting.

He promised to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants. Right now he's focused on stopping new illegal immigration, and clearing out dangerous criminals from among those already here. After that, if he his policy takes a humanitarian turn towards amnesty for the remaining however many "law-abiding" immigrants, are you really gonna roast the guy for being dishonest??

He promised to go after Hillary. Upon being elected, he may have decided he had better things to do. You think that makes him dishonest? It's like you're saying that two boxers who fight in a ring, should also be full of hate and want to fight when they see each other in the street.

If you don't recognize that there are going to be differences between candidates on campaigns, and elected officials serving in office, even when those two are physically teh same person, then you're just not living in reality man.

I think you're illustrating the stubborn intolerance of the liberal side. They seem to believe that when a candidate is elected, that he then gets to implement his entire platform with impunity. They believe that whoever is president gets to do what he wants...because he won. Obama famously stated that "elections have consequences" and that's how he ran his presidency, and it's a big reason why he was so ineffective once his party lost control of congress. It's why he has a dizzying record number of Executive Orders under his name, and so many of his primary accomplishments are written in sand.

you see it when democratic lawmakers get on the house floor and rail against republicans for not having a ready-to-go healthcare bill to replace Obamacare. Well....maybe they want some input from the other side. Maybe they're willing to compromise. Maybe they realize that elected officials need to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted from them

If Trump decides to let Hillary off the hook, why should that impugn his credibility? He's taking a position that is popular among ALL americans. Just because it pisses off a sliver of the base that voted for him, doesn't mean he's being a bad president, or a phony candidate by adjusting his position.

or, even if his position is unchanged, that doesn't mean he's obligated to act. Again, he's faced with the problem of prioritizing an infinite agenda. That means there's gonna be some stuff at the end of the list that doesn't get done.

Hey, it's not me who's defending him. I don't watch him hoping he follows through on all his idiotic promises. I've been arguing most of these are bad ideas. I'd think more of him if he didn't try to ban muslims or jail his political opponents. Sorry if you've confused me with someone else.

[BananaStand]

Where are all the people marching in support of the ban?

They're at work

EDIT: I'll bet many of them are intimidated. The UC Berkely episode is a perfect example, but far from a solitary incident. Who would go out there and hold a sign for the travel ban when it means masked trouble makers will throw rocks and bottles at you with impunity. The police don't seem interested in arresting people who start violence.

Also, they're probably not all that passionate about a 3 month pause. This isn't really a policy that is going to steer our national history down any dark path. It's 3 months, chill out!! It's the other side that thinks every little move Trump makes is a giant leap toward a totalitarian regime.

[Poopadoop]

They're at work

Right, at work all day every day. Weekends too.

Face it, he's yugely unpopular, you backed a loser.

[BananaStand]

Right, at work all day every day. Weekends too.

Face it, he's yugely unpopular, you backed a loser.

A loser who won? That's some alternative facts right there my friend.

And maybe some of us choose to make our voices heard in ways that actually matter instead of screaming on a street corner like hysterical idiots. Your local and regional newspapers publish editorials submitted by readers. Your senator or congressman will read the letters you send them.

[Poopadoop]

A loser who won?

Nixon won, still a loser.

That's some alternative facts right there my friend.

Nope, it's an opinion. Though it's probably as close to the truth as many of your facts.

And maybe some of us choose to make our voices heard in ways that actually matter instead of screaming on a street corner like hysterical idiots. Your local and regional newspapers publish editorials submitted by readers. Your senator or congressman will read the letters you send them.

I'm sure posting things on poker forums is a much better way to support your president than organising a mass rally.

[BananaStand]

Nixon won, still a loser.

Seems like you're unclear on the definition of loser. If you wanna call Nixon dishonest, crooked, or any of several other derogatory but apt terms, go ahead. But that doesn't change the fact that he emerged victorious in contests of politics.

Nope, it's an opinion. Though it's probably as close to the truth as many of your facts.

No sir, the definitions of words are not matters of opinion. When there are contests, the victors are called "winners", the defeated are called "losers". SURELY you don't expect me to determine the difference between when you're being bombastic, and when you should be taken literally.

I'm sure posting things on poker forums is a much better way to support your president than organising a mass rally.

Thought we weren't playing that ad hominem game?

[Poopadoop]

Seems like you're unclear on the definition of loser. If you wanna call Nixon dishonest, crooked, or any of several other derogatory but apt terms, go ahead. But that doesn't change the fact that he emerged victorious in contests of politics.

No sir, the definitions of words are not matters of opinion. When there are contests, the victors are called "winners", the defeated are called "losers". SURELY you don't expect me to determine the difference between when you're being bombastic, and when you should be taken literally.

No sir, you don't get to decide the frame of reference for how I use a word. Nixon can well be considered a loser in the larger frame of reference, having been impeached and tossed out of office in disgrace.

You can think he's a winner if you want because he won the election. But that's your choice to use that narrow frame of reference. Just like it's mine to use a broader frame which includes what he did once elected.


Thought we weren't playing that ad hominem game?[/QUOTE]

It's not ad hominen; it speaks perfectly to your argument that the people out protesting in the streets are wasting their time.

[Poopadoop]

Also, they're probably not all that passionate about a 3 month pause.

So they all voted for him, they support him, but they're too scared to organise and support him. Sure.

[BananaStand]

So they all voted for him, they support him, but they're too scared to organise and support him. Sure.

What planet are you living on? His supporters DID organize, unite, and speak loudly and publicly in support of Donald Trump and his policies.

It was on November 8th, 2016, and the 15 months leading up to that date.

Now, because liberals don't like the results, we have to fight it out in the streets?