Donald Trump discuss

[DunnoBro]

I think the "I'm with her" was more pushed by merchandisers since it was easier to push products with.

 

[Erimir]

just creste your own credible alternative, gang up all the minor candidates and parties, and help anybody you can to see that Republicans vs Democrates is not the only option. [...] But here on Catalunya, that's how we do it. And it normally works.

Catalunya elects their leadership by party-list proportional representation. The electoral strategy is completely different. Forming a third-party can be effective in such an electoral system. In the US, it is doomed to failure, because we elect the president separately from the legislature, the Electoral College requires an absolute majority and almost all of the states assign electors by winner-take-all plurality voting.

As a result, getting 19% of the vote can earn you zero electors (as Ross Perot won no electors whatsoever in 1992). And even if it had, it wouldn't have helped. It is not good enough for the Green Party to win 40% of the EC, in that situation, the House of Representatives would decide, and the House will almost certainly pick a Republican or Democrat (in this election they would've picked Trump).

The system is designed, constitutionally, in such a way that a two-party system is the only stable system and attempts to create third-parties tend to damage the interests of those voting for the third-party. For example, any environmentalist who voted for Nader on the Green Party ticket in 2000 instead helped Bush get elected, and Bush had horrible environmental policy. Even more obviously, when Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft, they split the Republican vote and thus elected Woodrow Wilson.

Running and supporting candidates closer to your views in the primary of the party closer to your views is a far more effective means of influencing things. Bernie Sanders was able to influence the Democratic Party platform and Clinton's platform far more than Jill Stein was. Jill Stein's campaign achieved nothing useful to the Green Party's ostensible goals (and I would say contributed to Clinton's narrow losses in WI/MI/PA). Had Clinton won, Sanders would've been a powerful member of the senate, and would've had influence over the direction of the party. Jill Stein has no influence on ****. Stein won't be responsible for any progressive movement in the party, which I would instead attribute to demographic trends, Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Fight for 15, 350.org, etc.

Third-party politics have never been effective in the US, and the only exception anyone could even try to point to was the genesis of the Republicans, all the way back in 1854 (but the Whig Party disintegrated concurrently, and the Republicans absorbed the larger part of the former Whig Party, meaning they never actually ran as a minor party).

we are stuck in a bad voting system with two parties running the show instead of being open to other ideas or candidates

Bernie Sanders was free to run in the Democratic primaries. The process was open to him. His ideas were incorporated into the party platform and Hillary's campaign proposals.

I understand many of his supporters were disappointed with the result of the primary, but it was not the case that other ideas and candidates were shut out. If you want more, get involved with the party and make it yours so that next time your candidate wins. If other ideas were completely shut out, the party never would've let Sanders appoint people to the platform committee, they wouldn't have incorporated his ideas, and he wouldn't have a position of influence in the Senate Democratic caucus. The Tea Party and then Trump took over the Republican Party, but you think that the Democratic Party can't be influenced? You just have to get involved (starting at the local level).

As I was explaining, the two-party system is constitutionally hardwired. Whining about it won't fix anything. You'll have to work with the system as it is, or actively work to blow it up (and no, voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson won't blow it up - when I say blow it up, I mean blow up the constitution, which probably would require the United States to disintegrate into multiple countries... so get to work on California secession).

Exit polls pretty much showed with Trump that the massive amount of people that voted for him wanted something to change with the establishment.

To be honest, most of that is ex post facto reasoning. The questions were what qualities were important. People were offered four qualities: experience, judgment, "cares about people like me" or "can bring change". Very few people would claim Trump had more or better experience for the job. His erratic behavior, bankruptcies and bigoted statements don't demonstrate good judgment, and his obvious narcissism makes "cares about me" an iffy proposition. Hence Hillary won on all of those traits in the exit polls (by the largest margin on experience, given that Hillary being more experienced in government is the least subjective quality). Hillary offered Democratic continuity, Trump offered change, so obviously you say "change" is what you want. If Hillary had been running against John McCain, she would've been the candidate of change simply because she would've been a change in party. Her being establishment is beside the point - I want Trump, Trump is different from the incumbent, ergo Trump is change, ergo I say I want change. It reveals little about the true motivations of his OR Hillary's voters.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and Hillary in 2016. I didn't change my mind about the importance of experience between the elections, my ideology pointed me to the Democrat in both cases. I would've had to pick something simply because that was the question. I can justify voting for Obama or Clinton on any of those measures, it's a pretty useless question, IMO.

People need to stop siting the electoral college as being problematic, it's there so four states don't run the show for everyone else and gives stronger voices to other states that also have their own interests and problems.

How the election is handled needs to change, removing the electoral college doesn't fix anything useful. We need different ways to vote and make it clear no one is happy with how this is run. We do it with our voice and do it together. What still makes this hard, is how few people actually vote in each election.

The Electoral College doesn't prevent a small number of states from deciding the election. It just changes which states they are. Most of the states are irrelevant in the current system. Florida is a large state, and it receives a huge amount of attention, more than most of the other states, including the other swing states. If California, Texas and NY were to become swing states, you can bet that they would receive almost all of the attention.

Instead of focusing on CA/TX/NY, a handful of other states (NC,NH,PA,NV,CO,OH) got a ton of attention instead. How is this preferable? It's just a different set of states getting all the attention while the others receive none. In fact, states like Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Washington pretty much receive NO attention under the Electoral College.

If we were decided by popular vote, they would all receive some attention. Obviously California and Texas would receive more attention. But why is that bad? They have more people. But the Electoral College gives no incentive at all to visit Tennessee or Washington. Under a popular vote, visiting Fresno, CA would be no more valuable than visiting Knoxville, TN just because it's in California. The fact that California is one of the biggest states wouldn't give any advantage to Fresno. They are similarly sized cities and thus would be equally valuable (assuming that the people of Fresno and Knoxville are equally persuadable and thus that you can gain votes by visiting or advertising in either one). The candidates would've visited Rhode Island and Tennessee and Oklahoma and South Carolina and Florida in a popular vote scenario. In the current system... they only visited Florida. And given the choice between visiting Los Angeles for a 4th time and visiting Fargo once... you might even go visit places like Fargo. Diminishing returns mean that you have more to gain when you visit a place for the first time, ergo you would still have a motivation to visit small states (it just wouldn't be that NH would be the only small state to get visits).

The EC does not give other states a stronger voice. It gave Florida and Pennsylvania a stronger voice and made 80% of the remaining states completely irrelevant.

ETA: btw, the four largest states have about 33.3% of the population. The swing states (those that flipped from 2012 or were decided by under 5%) have... about 32.9% of the population. It did not make the candidates campaign in a broader swath of the country. But it did stop them from campaigning in the remaining 2/3rds of the country, while a popular vote election would not.

 

[Teran]

Donald Trump is a legend, to me he sums up everything that defines America.

Perfect president for the country, if you don't like it, then maybe you should see that as a reflection of the country you live in.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

"I'm with her" was just as cringeworthy as "Drain the Swamp"...and both candidates were equally cringeworthy as well.

I was just watching a debate show here in Japan where the three Japanese hosts invited 20 or so foreigners to the show to debate and discuss Trump. It seemed kind of scripted since whenever the hosts started talking; everyone started shutting up and then the hosts directed their attention to another contestant.

It was interesting to see the range of viewpoints. The two Americans were Trump supporters and two others aren't. That had a very aggressive Japanese woman who is a huge Trump supporter. And numerous Europeans, Russians (they were some of the most vocal supporters) and even Canadians. And then the other side comprised of some Asians (China, Bangladesh, Korea), all of the African contestants, the muslim contestants, and a Mexican contestant whose sole argument was "Kuso aho Trump! Shine!" Which translates to "****ing ****ty Trump! Go die!" The Americans and the Mexican particularity got angry at each other. According to one of the muslim contestant, he said Trump is more dangerous to the world than radical Islam. This is of course all in Japanese with no English. One of the white contestants said "we are building the wall and you will pay for it!" and the Mexican said "****ty American!"

Oh, actually the American is a known Gaijin tv persoanlity here. His name Atsurugi Jason.

He is known for exploding at the camera with strange phrases. He even does a children tv program teaching them how to computer programming called "WHY PROGRAMMING??!!" In the same manner as his above tv show. My four year old niece finds him loud and annoying.

Anyways, it's still going on but even though its a debate, no one is really winning. The hosts talk, the foreigners yell at each other, the hosts quiets them down, asks another question, and then lets them at it again.

 

[Dilan Omer]

Donald Trump is a legend, to me he sums up everything that defines America.

Perfect president for the country, if you don't like it, then maybe you should see that as a reflection of the country you live in.

Perfect? I recognize his positive qualities but why does he deny climate change? Heck if he is so bold he should push for Nuclear energy with the argument that the dangers from Nuclear energy are less scary than the dangers of Climate change.

Also he sometimes says stupid stuff.

 

[Raycu]

I'm honestly surprised ten pages into this it hasn't been cut off by a mod for flame wars or arguments.

Perfect? I recognize his positive qualities but why does he deny climate change? Heck if he is so bold he should push for Nuclear energy with the argument that the dangers from Nuclear energy are less scary than the dangers of Climate change.

Also he sometimes says stupid stuff.

He's saying America is bad, and that Trump is perfect because he is also bad.

Or in simpler terms *WHOOSH*

 

[Teran]

Perfect? I recognize his positive qualities but why does he deny climate change? Heck if he is so bold he should push for Nuclear energy with the argument that the dangers from Nuclear energy are less scary than the dangers of Climate change.

Also he sometimes says stupid stuff.

These are the reasons he's the perfect American president. Donald Trump is the embodiment of how the rest of the world sees America, so whether or not you think that's good or bad depends on how you feel about Trump himself.

 

[Ten of Nine]

These are the reasons he's the perfect American president. Donald Trump is the embodiment of how the rest of the world sees America, so whether or not you think that's good or bad depends on how you feel about Trump himself.

Sure it's how ignorant foreigners see America, but it's far from what America is really like.

The majority of this country voted for Hilary. The electoral vote gave it to Trump. Either way we had bad choices.

We can't just decide to move to another country, and the way less than half of a country behaves or votes doesn't mean the whole country feels that way.

That is very shallow thinking.

What you're saying is similar to saying Hitler was the Perfect German leader, he was the embodiment of how the world see Germany.

Or the same with China's leaders or N. Korea's leader.

We've been lucky the past century to get relatively good choices for presidency. This go around was embarrassing, not many Americans felt good about this election period. None of this represent America correctly, there is a massive divide (might as well be two different countries right now).

 

[Teran]

The majority of this country voted for Hilary. The electoral vote gave it to Trump. Either way we had bad choices.

Enough still voted for Trump.

We can't just decide to move to another country, and the way less than half of a country behaves or votes doesn't mean the whole country feels that way.

And the way your country's system of representation works makes that point irrelevant, because Trump won under that system.

That is very shallow thinking.

Exactly, that's how all of this works.

What you're saying is similar to saying Hitler was the Perfect German leader, he was the embodiment of how the world see Germany.

He literally was though, I don't think anyone can name anyone more iconically German than Hitler.

 

[Raycu]

Sure it's how ignorant foreigners see America, but it's far from what America is really like.

The majority of this country voted for Hilary. The electoral vote gave it to Trump. Either way we had bad choices.

We can't just decide to move to another country, and the way less than half of a country behaves or votes doesn't mean the whole country feels that way.

That is very shallow thinking.

What you're saying is similar to saying Hitler was the Perfect German leader, he was the embodiment of how the world see Germany.

Or the same with China's leaders or N. Korea's leader.

We've been lucky the past century to get relatively good choices for presidency. This go around was embarrassing, not many Americans felt good about this election period. None of this represent America correctly, there is a massive divide (might as well be two different countries right now).

As a current American, the amount of homophobia, sexism, and racism I see daily is indicative of the opposite of what you claim.

 

[Ten of Nine]

As a current American, the amount of homophobia, sexism, and racism I see daily is indicative of the opposite of what you claim.

So then every single person in America is that way including you? 40% of a country acts one way so everyone should be labeled as that. It's not the opposite of what I claim, it's exactly what I claim.

I would respond more, but you've shown multiple times in that other thread that you literally can't comprehend simple sentences (not an exaggeration). And it's happening here too. Let me know when that changes and I'll engage with you again.

 

[Raycu]

So then every single person in America is that way including you? 40% of a country acts one way so everyone should be labeled as that. It's not the opposite of what I claim, it's exactly what I claim.

I would respond more, but you've shown multiple times in that other thread that you literally can't comprehend simple sentences (not an exaggeration). And it's happening here too. Let me know when that changes and I'll engage with you again.

Condescension is unbecoming, and please keep other threads separate. I thought to bring that up too but abstained because it seemed unreasonable.

P.S. Irony has multiple definitions, one of the most popular being "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

 

[Ten of Nine]

Condescension is unbecoming, and please keep other threads separate. I thought to bring that up too but abstained because it seemed unreasonable.

P.S. Irony has multiple definitions, one of the most popular being "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

You didn't bring it up because you were categorically wrong and based a whole novel of very biased reply nonsense on something I never said. I invite anyone and everyone to see what you wrote over there, it's hilarious slander and it might keep them from conversing with you for fear of wasting time.

Irony does have a few meanings, but still it's not how you used it. You were looking to use "hypocritical". Alanis Morisette used the word irony wrong in a song so now everyone uses it wrong, no reason to be ashamed. That definition that you just quoted still wouldn't make sense.

Now back on topic, do you care to explain your comment. Or do you now realize that it makes no sense again and you just wanted to antagonize?

Boy you sure do like butting into conversations that don't involve you.

 

[Raycu]

You didn't bring it up because you were categorically wrong and based a whole novel of very biased reply nonsense on something I never said. I invite anyone and everyone to see what you wrote over there, it's hilarious slander and it might keep them from conversing with you for fear of wasting time.

Irony does have a few meanings, but still it's not how you used it. You were looking to use "hypocritical". Alanis Morisette used the word irony wrong in a song so now everyone uses it wrong, no reason to be ashamed. That definition that you just quoted still wouldn't make sense.

Now back on topic, do you care to explain your comment. Or do you now realize that it makes no sense again and you just wanted to antagonize?

Boy you sure do like butting into conversations that don't involve you.

The amount of condescension in this is so thick that I don't think I could cut it with a falchion. I'd much rather leave this completely unrelated thread before it becomes locked.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

It's only been eight days and President Trump is leading America into a constitutional crisis after he issued an executive order banning Muslims from 7 countries. It's getting so bad that he fired people right now. How do you guys feel about this?

 

[link2702]

things are only going to get worse. Something tells me absolute chaos, possible martial law, and riots unlike anything we've ever seen before in this country are about to happen.

The saddest part is all these warning signs were there long before he won the presidency. His past history of compulsive lying, questionable business practices, and never admitting when he's wrong, should have been all red flags warning people about him. Then him refusing to release his tax returns, lying right on stage in front of everyone, making outlandish threats, including trying to incite his followers to attack his political opponent, pushing fake news as facts(even when the most basic and simplest of fact checking debunked all of the bs he spewed.) and putting a publisher of a fake news website as his chief strategist, should have been more than enough evidence to show people he'a a very real threat to our country.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

I'm not sure if America is going to descend into total anarchy yet since everybody is trying to stop it before it gets worse. I do think he's gonna get impeached though.

 

[Sucumbio]

Merged with the larger Trump thread. No need for splinter discussions.

OT: there's a lot of people expecting this first week to result in Trump getting impeached. I honestly think it's too soon to be expecting that, but I do understand the reasoning. He absolutely has gone about the travel ban in the wrong way. He wants to eliminate domestic terror threats in one sweeping action but it's impossible. All this does is hurt regular people and the terrorists win anyway.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

Merged with the larger Trump thread. No need for splinter discussions.

OT: there's a lot of people expecting this first week to result in Trump getting impeached. I honestly think it's too soon to be expecting that, but I do understand the reasoning. He absolutely has gone about the travel ban in the wrong way. He wants to eliminate domestic terror threats in one sweeping action but it's impossible. All this does is hurt regular people and the terrorists win anyway.

Yep, My Dad says it takes a while for a president to get impeached, but the way he's pushing racism in his laws and refusing to diverse himself from his businesses is making a lot of people wish for a speedy impeachment. (Even though I know that's not going to happen and Congress shouldn't speed through an impeachment.)

 

[Raycu]

He hasn't technically (as far as I know) done anything illegal, so he can't be impeached... yet.

 

[FallenHero]

I doubt he is going to get impeached within the next few months, but right now it seems inevitable. Can someone tell me what would happen if he does get impeached though? I would imagine the VP would be impeached as well, but I don't know.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

I doubt he is going to get impeached within the next few months, but right now it seems inevitable. Can someone tell me what would happen if he does get impeached though? I would imagine the VP would be impeached as well, but I don't know.

The VP ususally doesn't get impeached at the same time as the president unless they've committed a crime on their own. VP Gerald Ford didn't get impeached when Nixon did.

 

[FallenHero]

The VP ususally doesn't get impeached at the same time as the president unless they've committed a crime on their own. VP Gerald Ford didn't get impeached when Nixon did.

So I guess whether or not Trump is impeached, it's still kind of a lose/lose situation for us.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

So I guess whether or not Trump is impeached, it's still kind of a lose/lose situation for us.

Yeah, Pence is still pretty right-wing, at least he's not a mean person like Trump. (We still need to watch our backs.)

 

[MisterDom]

If Trump he's impeached or resigns (which is inevitable being riddled with numerous extreme Russian scandals, conflicts of interest, using a private phone, being a ticking time bomb before he denies the judiciary, firing acting Secretaries without senate approval, etc.) than Mike Pence becomes president. I predict it will take till 2019 to impeach him because there's a fair chance Democrats will take back quite a few seats whether they be Centrist or Justice Democrats, and Republicans are far too stubborn to impeach him as of this moment.

Though Mike Pence isn't exactly great in my eyes, at least he has some brain. I'd much rather have him make decisions than Trump. If Trump wasn't being influenced by Pence, McConnell, and Ryan, he might've already done something very dangerous. A lot of his foreign policy views and even some other views have flip-flopped because of this to be more traditionally Republican. If he was running foreign policy alone with his Secretary for some advice there could've already been a disaster. Hell, there were disasters when he was just transitioning into office with China. A lot of Trump's views contradict each other too, so I'd rather have a consistent traditional conservative policy rather than a conflicting mess of ideas regarding his economics, his clueless understanding of the military and foreign policy, his worthless proposals on keeping this country safe, and etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Pence will probably be able to run the country decently for four years, and that's a sad thing to say for someone with lots of homosexual family. Trump is running the country for now but so far it's mostly only been vague executive orders or downright unconstitutional ones, namely the Muslim/Refugee/Travel Ban or whatever you prefer to call it. He won't be able to keep that up.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

If Trump he's impeached or resigns (which is inevitable being riddled with numerous extreme Russian scandals, conflicts of interest, using a private phone, being a ticking time bomb before he denies the judiciary, firing acting Secretaries without senate approval, etc.) than Mike Pence becomes president. I predict it will take till 2019 to impeach him because there's a fair chance Democrats will take back quite a few seats whether they be Centrist or Justice Democrats, and Republicans are far too stubborn to impeach him as of this moment.

Though Mike Pence isn't exactly great in my eyes, at least he has some brain. I'd much rather have him make decisions than Trump. If Trump wasn't being influenced by Pence, McConnell, and Ryan, he might've already done something very dangerous. A lot of his foreign policy views and even some other views have flip-flopped because of this to be more traditionally Republican. If he was running foreign policy alone with his Secretary for some advice there could've already been a disaster. Hell, there were disasters when he was just transitioning into office with China. A lot of Trump's views contradict each other too, so I'd rather have a consistent traditional conservative policy rather than a conflicting mess of ideas regarding his economics, his clueless understanding of the military and foreign policy, his worthless proposals on keeping this country safe, and etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Pence will probably be able to run the country decently for four years, and that's a sad thing to say for someone with lots of homosexual family. Trump is running the country for now but so far it's mostly only been vague executive orders or downright unconstitutional ones, namely the Muslim/Refugee/Travel Ban or whatever you prefer to call it. He won't be able to keep that up.

I remember reading in a article that when somebody did something Trump didn't like he wanted to retaliate in the harshest way possible until one of his aides pulled him over and explained why this would be a really bad idea. He would usually back off after that.

I agree with you that his actions may have been moderated a bit by others. Trump would have already bombed Iran if people didn't pull him back from the brink.

 

[bboss]

So I guess whether or not Trump is impeached, it's still kind of a lose/lose situation for us.

Realistically the chances of this happening are very very slim.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

Realistically the chances of this happening are very very slim.

How come? Why don't you think he'll be impeached?

 

[bboss]

How come? Why don't you think he'll be impeached?

For a couple of reasons:

1. Not cheating on his wife, although Donald has been married several times, he doesn't cheat and therefore this Bill-Clintonesque scenario is very unlikely to happen. I watched in interview with Melanie in which she stated that "although me and Donald have differences, we never fight."
2. He's just doing what he said he would do. The American people elected him, and now he's just fulfilling his promises, but for some reason the Leftists are going crazy, skipping their jobs and going on protests. When Trump was elected, angry bands of Leftists actually marched out into the streets, vandalizing bus shelters and cars. The point is, although the media may tell you otherwise, he's really just fulfilling his campaign promises that he said he would always do.
3. He's smart. Whether or not you would like to believe it, Trump was one of the most powerful men in the world even before he was elected, considering his business empire. He knows how to run things. Also last night, there was a press conference, Trump's first in 28 days. When Major Garret of CBS News asked about the Russian boat spotted off the American coast and what Trump would do about it, Trump replied, "Well I know what I'm going to do, but I'm obviously not going to tell you. This is a military matter."
So basically a sex scandal is very unlikely, Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises, and he's really smart at tactical situations, so realistically, all things considered, the odds of him being impeached are very low.
Also lady_sky skipper thanks for not lashing out at me... I have stated these very same opinions elsewhere, and people have lashed out at me with profanity and hate, so thanks for not doing that!

 

[wedl!!]

2. He's just doing what he said he would do. The American people elected him, and now he's just fulfilling his promises

I don't understand how this makes his actions valid or constitutional

Anyways he never promised to commit treason and if anything will get him booted from the White House, it's that

but for some reason the Leftists are going crazy, skipping their jobs and going on protests. When Trump was elected, angry bands of Leftists actually marched out into the streets, vandalizing bus shelters and cars. The point is, although the media may tell you otherwise, he's really just fulfilling his campaign promises that he said he would always do.

yeah, because he's a fascist bigot and the spineless Dems in Congress refuse to take action against him

damage of insured property (which is, by the way, far less frequent than you might think!) is far less grim than 40k+ people dying because they cannot afford healthcare or refugees suffering in destitute conditions because they "might be a terrorist" (though homegrown terrorism, the kind that Steve Bannon's not classifying as worth investigating, is far more frequent than that committed by Middle Eastern immigrants!!)

 

[bboss]

I don't understand how this makes his actions valid or constitutional

Anyways he never promised to commit treason and if anything will get him booted from the White House, it's that

yeah, because he's a fascist bigot and the spineless Dems in Congress refuse to take action against him

Please, let's refrain from using words like "Fascist" to describe Republicans. Their ideologies are far from fascist. It is a huge insult to call someone fascist. Just because his views do not line up with yours does not mean he is a fascist, or even necessarily wrong. Fascist should only be used to describe leaders who actually demonstrate this property, such as the leaders of North Korea. They are the closest to modern day fascism. I personally do not use Fascist as an adjective because I find it hateful.
As for your other response, "Never promised to commit treason," this doesn't even make sense, and it's not like the president, when he is sworn in, says "I promise never to commit treason." This is ridiculous. Since when is there a line in the inauguration that says, "I never promise to commit treason?"
And as for calling Democrats spineless, I don't think that Democrats are cowards. I think that there just aren't enough of them to oppose trump, so you never hear about them acting.
Damage of insured property was actually a lot after the election. Thousands and thousands of dollars, actually. And as for home-grown terrorism, that isn't the point. Even if there are home-grown terrorists, guess who recruits and trains them? Middle eastern terrorists. It all comes back to them, so ultimately the are the problem.

 

[Raycu]

Please, let's refrain from using words like "Fascist" to describe

1. Republicans. Their ideologies are far from fascist. It is a huge insult to call someone fascist. Just because his views do not line up with yours does not mean he is a fascist, or even necessarily wrong. Fascist should only be used to describe leaders who actually demonstrate this property, such as the leaders of North Korea. They are the closest to modern day fascism. I personally do not use Fascist as an adjective because I find it hateful.


2. As for your other response, "Never promised to commit treason," this doesn't even make sense, and it's not like the president, when he is sworn in, says "I promise never to commit treason." This is ridiculous. Since when is there a line in the inauguration that says, "I never promise to commit treason?"

And as for calling Democrats spineless, I don't think that Democrats are cowards. I think that there just aren't enough of them to oppose trump, so you never hear about them acting.
Damage of insured property was actually a lot after the election. Thousands and thousands of dollars, actually. And as for home-grown terrorism, that isn't the point. Even if there are home-grown terrorists, guess who recruits and trains them? Middle eastern terrorists. It all comes back to them, so ultimately the are the problem.

1. That's not how adjectives work, and "
an advocate or follower of the political philosophy or system of fascism.
"he went to Spain to fight against the fascists"
synonyms: authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, extreme right-winger, rightist; More

antonyms: liberal

• a person who is extremely right-wing or authoritarian.
  "fascists made death threats against immigrants and asylum seekers"
• a person who is very intolerant or domineering in a particular area.
  "I'm a bit of a spelling fascist, but still have blind spots over words like “privilege” or “separate”" "

Intolerant of other religions and ethnicities along with being extremely right wing. Gee, I wonder who that might describe. (Aside from basically all of Trumps allies)

2. They were more speaking to your claims that he was following his campaign promises and recent news of leaks to Russia, aiding Russian intelligence, and even more recently part of Central Intelligence refusing to brief him because they fear the information will immediately be leaked, and is not secure in his hands.

3. Damage of insured property was actually a lot after the election. Thousands and thousands of dollars, actually. And as for home-grown terrorism, that isn't the point. Even if there are home-grown terrorists, guess who recruits and trains them? Middle eastern terrorists. It all comes back to them, so ultimately the are the problem.

Most recruiting of homegrown terrorism is either done online, through media, or simply mentally unstable people picking up dogma and following it for no apparent reason. Something which limiting influx of Muslims will certainly not remedy.

Finally: As for your claims that Trump is actually smart you've provided a single short quote that even a fifth grader could come up with. In fact, it's one of the oldest tricks in the book for convincing someone you know something. I remember trying it out in second grade (And back then it seems it didn't work, which might speak to the level of ignorance your argument contains).

Me: Did you hear about So and So's big secret?

Random 2nd grader: Yeah, did you?

Me: Totally!

Random 2nd grader: What was it then?

Me: You know, the thing!

(As you can probably guess it didn't work).

Now could you provide some realistic evidence for him being intelligent, because most of the things I've seen point towards the opposite, ranging from claims that large tax breaks will fix our economy, something the average economist can tell you isn't true, to appointing some of the least intelligent cabinet members, who on average http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...rop-off-trump-cabinet-picks-article-1.2911859
have a much lower level of education, some not even being college graduates. Or do I need to reference a very infamous case of Trump seemingly not knowing who Frederick Douglas is? Plans to build a wall (Which by the way would do nothing to stop immigration seeing as a large majority of illegal immigration isn't people jumping walls or moving through trucks, but actually work visa overstays. Lastly is his claims about global warming to point towards a complete and total lack of any common sense.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

For a couple of reasons:

1. Not cheating on his wife, although Donald has been married several times, he doesn't cheat and therefore this Bill-Clintonesque scenario is very unlikely to happen. I watched in interview with Melanie in which she stated that "although me and Donald have differences, we never fight."
2. He's just doing what he said he would do. The American people elected him, and now he's just fulfilling his promises, but for some reason the Leftists are going crazy, skipping their jobs and going on protests. When Trump was elected, angry bands of Leftists actually marched out into the streets, vandalizing bus shelters and cars. The point is, although the media may tell you otherwise, he's really just fulfilling his campaign promises that he said he would always do.
3. He's smart. Whether or not you would like to believe it, Trump was one of the most powerful men in the world even before he was elected, considering his business empire. He knows how to run things. Also last night, there was a press conference, Trump's first in 28 days. When Major Garret of CBS News asked about the Russian boat spotted off the American coast and what Trump would do about it, Trump replied, "Well I know what I'm going to do, but I'm obviously not going to tell you. This is a military matter."
So basically a sex scandal is very unlikely, Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises, and he's really smart at tactical situations, so realistically, all things considered, the odds of him being impeached are very low.
Also lady_sky skipper thanks for not lashing out at me... I have stated these very same opinions elsewhere, and people have lashed out at me with profanity and hate, so thanks for not doing that!

You're welcome, I'm fine with disagreeing as long as people don't use it as an excuse to act like a jerk. There are a few points I do want to bring up.

1. Actually he did cheat on Ivana with Marla Maples, I honestly don't know if he's cheating on Melania but he has been unfaithful.
2. You're right about this, he's trying to fulfill his campaign promises although they tend to be very xenophobic.
3. Most of his businesses failed, except for his real estate business, which makes me wonder if he should have stuck to what he knew how to do best.

Anyway, just my two cents on this issue

 

[bboss]

First of all, it is how adjectives work. Fascist is an adjective.
Also liberals are not far-right, they are called "leftists" because they are far left.
Just because I only had time to provide one example of him being smart doesn't mean up he's not. Obviously he is smart enough to know he only needed the support of the electoral college and not the popular vote. He's president now, and he must be somewhat smart to get to that position.
As for the news I don't really trust mainstream media after the election, the media polling the odds of trump winning less than thirty percent, and the media telling us global warming is an immediate threat, I don't really trust them. The media has been known to get the facts ring from time to time, and it might just be a little bit of a good opportunity to get a couple of facts "wrong" if your opponent doesn't agree with you.
I think we can agree to disagree

 

[Raycu]

First of all, it is how adjectives work. Fascist is an adjective.
Also liberals are not far-right, they are called "leftists" because they are far left.
Just because I only had time to provide one example of him being smart doesn't mean up he's not. Obviously he is smart enough to know he only needed the support of the electoral college and not the popular vote. He's president now, and he must be somewhat smart to get to that position.
As for the news I don't really trust mainstream media after the election, the media polling the odds of trump winning less than thirty percent, and the media telling us global warming is an immediate threat, I don't really trust them. The media has been known to get the facts ring from time to time, and it might just be a little bit of a good opportunity to get a couple of facts "wrong" if your opponent doesn't agree with you.
I think we can agree to disagree

Wait, so media is just outright wrong about global warming, or are they wrong about it being an immediate threat?

How does this info-graph make you feel then? How old are you? 15, 20, 25? This will affect your lifespan.

As for liberals not being right, google antonym.

(P.S. literally every president ever knows how the electoral college works, and in this instance it is much more likely that his campaign manager told him which states to visit)

 

[lady_sky skipper]

Now I hear that Donald Trump is spreading some Fake News himself as he mentioned yesterday that something bad happened in Sweden on Friday night that never happened.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Now I hear that Donald Trump is spreading some Fake News himself as he mentioned yesterday that something bad happened in Sweden on Friday night that never happened.

Sweden and Germany have huge immigration problems right now, because the door is too wide open with letting everyone come in.

Trumps travel ban wouldn't solve this either, what needs to happen is a better filter for who does come in.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

Sweden and Germany have huge immigration problems right now, because the door is too wide open with letting everyone come in.

Trumps travel ban wouldn't solve this either, what needs to happen is a better filter for who does come in.

Actually, we already have a good filter for the refugees that are coming in done by the UN. From what I've heard, at least Sweden's immigration problems have been exaggerated.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Actually, we already have a good filter for the refugees that are coming in done by the UN. From what I've heard, at least Sweden's immigration problems have been exaggerated.

Most refugees aren't the issue, the issue is how immigrants are causing huge crime problems in Sweden and Germany because both of those countries, and some other European countries have the,doors too wide open.

Sweden is having issues, it's not an exaggeration. Because the above is leading to that.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

The recent turn of events has been pretty delicious to watch the alt-right and neo-nazis like the Daily Stormer jump ship and go ballistic at the first sign of things not going their way. Several months of "winning" and "God emperor" Trump and now they are ready to roast the guy at the stake for being a traitor. And of course they all blame Kushner :rolls eyes: