"Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management."
"You tell me"
Is there more to this that I'm missing? What I see is two lines of confusing quotes with the majority being contextual pretext and one line that is likely an off the cuff sarcastic comment to a stupid question.
rather long speech with specific points and no pretext. Can you provide Trumps actual speeches without pretext so I can better understand how two lines of out of context quotes are the same as a half an hour long tirade against Jewish people? What you provided tends to lend credence to my questions, I'd like some actual speeches of just Trump speaking with no pretext.
Last edited by AcGold; 11-09-2016 at 04:33 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to AcGold For This Useful Post:
She did have a policy and yes it did fall on def ears because she used too big of words and concepts for the large dumb population, whereas Trump's biggest word was tremendous (also his most favorite) and had no concepts for people to get behind.
Look at the Saudi crisis debate. Clinton said she would air strike Mosul, ground troop Bagdahdi, and delivered some pretty good detail. Trump said he doesn't get why Obama goes on TV and gives the enemy a heads up by telling them he will strike leaders in Mosul. He then says, "trust me, I got 200 generals who support me."
I'm sorry, but maybe Clinton was "elitist", or maybe the voters are just dumb and were all left wondering how an educated women lost so many votes to a bafoon, so we're scrambling for excuses like elitism.
You know, after the provincial election I railed that the people that voted for the NDP were dumb, a statement that I made out of anger, and I was counciled by a very learned fish that I was being idiotic and foolish, he said it in a much more direct way though.
By merely dismissing people that voted for Trump as dumb or miss informed people are missing the key point of this whole exercise and that's understanding why the people voted the way they did.
If the left or the democrats merely dismiss this results as the voters being dumb, or lazy or misinformed, they're going to doom themselves to losing again and not fixing the mistakes that were made.
Voters aren't dumb, they have their reasons for their votes.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Olbermann with his prediction for... well, basically the descent into madness of the country followed by impeachment.
Guy's rants are bordering on Alex Jones territory, but he sure can turn a phrase.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
"Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management."
"You tell me"
Is there more to this that I'm missing? What I see is two lines of confusing quotes with the majority being contextual pretext and one line that is likely an off the cuff sarcastic comment to a stupid question.
rather long speech with specific points and no pretext. Can you provide Trumps actual speeches without pretext so I can better understand how two lines of out of context quotes are the same as a half an hour long tirade against Jewish people? What you provided tends to lend credence to my questions, I'd like some actual speeches of just Trump speaking with no pretext.
Nah, this is your political version of the vaccination discussion.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Nah, this is your political version of the vaccination discussion.
I'm asking for quotes wit no pretext, that's it bud. Or are you just going to make this personal attacks now to deflect? I'm not even saying he didn't say these things, if everyone is so sure he's racist there has to be a paragraph or two that I'm missing, I'm looking for those quotes because I'm confused.
Each party nominates some number of candidates, lets say 5, whatever. Voters then pick their choice from those 10(or probably more with independents). The person with the most votes wins. That's actually it. Bam. Fixed. Hillary or Trump wouldn't have to be their parties nomination, the people could actually choose form a more diverse slate of candidates. Also, no more electoral college. Now, if you wanted to get more nuanced(which may be necessary, I dunno I just thought about this 3 minutes ago) you could have the person who got the most votes representing the party that got the most votes be the winner. Just so you don't get a popular blue guy winning when the red party overall got more votes. Ya, lets do it that way.
Now, you may be thinking that's what the primaries for, and they pick the best candidate to put forward. But they clearly don't and people are left with a choice between a giant ###### and a turd sandwich. The primaries are also all over the map, so some regions end up deciding for the whole country, and since they don't vote at the same time, it causes issues of fairness.
One thing we can look forward to is a kick-ass PBS Frontline episode explaining what just exactly the hell happened in this election.
I think it's pretty clear at this point. The echo chamber undervalued what a statistically significant proportion of the electorate was feeling. They ignored the signs and ignored a huge recent example only 6 months ago in the UK.
I was pretty annoyed at myself this morning for being as surprised as I was, mostly because this is just another result driven on the sentiment behind Brexit. Everyone is super smart in hindsight.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
You know, after the provincial election I railed that the people that voted for the NDP were dumb, a statement that I made out of anger, and I was counciled by a very learned fish that I was being idiotic and foolish, he said it in a much more direct way though.
By merely dismissing people that voted for Trump as dumb or miss informed people are missing the key point of this whole exercise and that's understanding why the people voted the way they did.
If the left or the democrats merely dismiss this results as the voters being dumb, or lazy or misinformed, they're going to doom themselves to losing again and not fixing the mistakes that were made.
Voters aren't dumb, they have their reasons for their votes.
I would argue they assumed the best in people. They let Hilary run her campaign in a way that informed people of her policy and describe open and detailed platforms, not understanding that the majority of people need to be spoken to plainly. They assumed Americans aren't inherently racist. She shouldve rolled up her sleeves, threw around some hail bails, and then had a speech how she's bringing back jobs "because economy" and that the country needed less radical muslims and Mexicans and more white folk with jobs and God.
"Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management."
"You tell me"
Is there more to this that I'm missing? What I see is two lines of confusing quotes with the majority being contextual pretext and one line that is likely an off the cuff sarcastic comment to a stupid question.
rather long speech with specific points and no pretext. Can you provide Trumps actual speeches without pretext so I can better understand how two lines of out of context quotes are the same as a half an hour long tirade against Jewish people? What you provided tends to lend credence to my questions, I'd like some actual speeches of just Trump speaking with no pretext.
If you can't see the obvious parallels in the treatment of a minority group then what are quotes going to do? You can't compare the guy who's tag line is "You're Fired" with arguably one of the greatest orators in history. No one is trying to claim Trump IS Hitler or has the same evil intentions against Muslims, but you said that claims of his racists/discriminatory attitude didn't exist.
By supporting and encouraging policy that has such a sweeping generalization against a visible minority group is exactly where the claims come from. History has shown it's a very slippery slope when you start to curtail a group's rights like this, especially in a country founded on people fleeing religious persecution.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
"France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?" the reporter asked.
"We’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago," Trump said.
The Yahoo reporter then asked Trump, "Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?"
Trump responded, "We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."
Here, Trump didn’t reject the idea of a Muslim registry, but he also didn’t give an affirmative "yes" that he wanted to create such a database."
"Just so it's clear, Trump did not suggest that Muslim-Americans should be required to wear a symbol that would visibly identify them as Muslims, such as a gold crescent. (On the other hand, he did not rule it out.) "
So your one flimsy source that supports the point I was raising and then two that also support it.
Does Rumsfeld not acknowledging a stupid question make him a lizard, is that how this works?
Each party nominates some number of candidates, lets say 5, whatever. Voters then pick their choice from those 10(or probably more with independents). The person with the most votes wins. That's actually it. Bam. Fixed. Hillary or Trump wouldn't have to be their parties nomination, the people could actually choose form a more diverse slate of candidates. Also, no more electoral college. Now, if you wanted to get more nuanced(which may be necessary, I dunno I just thought about this 3 minutes ago) you could have the person who got the most votes representing the party that got the most votes be the winner. Just so you don't get a popular blue guy winning when the red party overall got more votes. Ya, lets do it that way.
Now, you may be thinking that's what the primaries for, and they pick the best candidate to put forward. But they clearly don't and people are left with a choice between a giant ###### and a turd sandwich. The primaries are also all over the map, so some regions end up deciding for the whole country,
and since they don't vote at the same time, it causes issues of fairness.
Trump would win in a pool of 10 candidates without a ranked ballot.
I think simple things like open primaries would solve a lot of issues of extremism. Also the California house system of 1 primary for all the parties and the top 2 regardless of affiliation go onto the general.
1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.
2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and “come together.” They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.
3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn’t wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.
4. Everyone must stop saying they are “stunned” and “shocked.” What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren’t paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all “You're fired!” Trump’s victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.
5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don’t. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he’s president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we’ll continue to have presidents we didn’t elect and didn’t want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there’s climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don’t want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the “liberal” position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above). Let's try to get this all done by noon today. -- Michael Moore
Point 5 to me is really irrelevant, if the system worked on a majority vote then fine, but it doesn't they selected the system its there thats it unless they elect a president that decides to change it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Where did he blame Mexicans and all non races for Americas problems? I've seen so many claims but zero support for these racist claims from those that espouse it as immutable fact.
I've seen him say Mexico is winning immigration because America gets the crappy Mexicans. This is not unique, in the 80's thousands of Cubans went to the US and they were the worst criminal aspects of that society. Does acknowledging that fact make one racist against Cubans?
I've seen him say vet the Muslim immigrants because they may be dangerous, a seemingly logical conclusion when the biggest opponent of the US is Muslim extremism as evidenced by the death of thousands of Americans. I'm not seeing the racism, I'm seeing a lot of claims of absolutes by Trumps detractors with not much support.
To clarify I don't support Trump but I'd like to know where these claims are coming from.
1000s? Maybe soldiers who are directly in war zones. Actual American citizens killed is very low. So low that its hardly a logical conclusion. Odds of being killed by a terrorist in the states is probably about the same as being struck by lightning twice. Which is why his ideas are looked at as being pretty prejudice.
