Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
You also forget to add that they continuously state that they are on the "right side" of the argument.
Well that's just silly. Anyone who has ever looked at a political chart knows they're on the left.
Random Politics & Religion #22 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #22
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Some did, and those are the people the media targets in their "stories." That way, they can portray the "typical Trump voter" to be <insert derogatory/deplorable term>. Most people who voted for Trump don't give a ***about some of the things he did (in his private life) or what he posts on Twitter (pre- and post-election). Fair. For the purpose of this specific argument however "not caring" is basically tacit approval in that it was not detrimental to him. Fone and Niko's worst nightmare. Feminist Whiskey with a taste of Hillary. All it needs is bill Clinton branded Cuban cigars Ramyrez said: » "not caring" is basically tacit approval in that it was not detrimental to him. Trump doesn't get to be the only president under constant scrutiny, nor does his voters be applied the same constant scrutiny because they didn't outright protest one very specific thing that he may have done years ago and/or tweeted something yesterday or years ago. If you apply that to Trump and his voters, then you will have to apply that to Obama and his voters too. How would you like to be condemned for supporting Assad's genocide on the Syrian population because you "tacitly approved" Obama's enforcement of his own "red line"? Asura.Kingnobody said: » No it isn't. Unless you want to apply the same standard to everyone for everything every president did or didn't do throughout history. Ramyrez said: » For the purpose of this specific argument He got the votes of those people whether they actually cared about what he did or not. That's all I'm saying. I'm speaking entirely of non-political items that were brought to light during the election. His treatment of women, his business practices, his rampant nepotism. His bromance with Putin.
Those are the items I'm talking about in relation to polling. People either liked them or found them ignorable. Therefore there's no reason they'd change their mind about him in relation to anything that's been further said or done since the election. Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » No it isn't. Unless you want to apply the same standard to everyone for everything every president did or didn't do throughout history. Ramyrez said: » For the purpose of this specific argument He got the votes of those people whether they actually cared about what he did or not. That's all I'm saying. You can't use Trump as a specific argument when your determination and reasoning applies to the previous 3 presidents. Ramyrez said: » His bromance with Putin. Syrian Missiles says hi. I wonder if the team vs. team political structure is so ingrained in sociology that it is impossible to overcome. It's natural to partially ignore your side's faults and focus a little more on the faults of the opponent. What I want to believe is unnatural is the length that people will go to justify practically everything their side does, and magnify every incredibly minor flaw in their opponent to an asinine degree. The former is annoying but expected bias. The latter damages everybody because the objective is not to put forth a well-vetted, competent leader. The objective is to win at all costs.
I just wish there was a clear solution, but even the most educated humans engage in the most abject stupidity when it comes to politics. You're just dead set on bashing other presidents.
I'm talking about Trump-specific things in relation to this one poll and why his numbers predictably wouldn't go down if there was another election between those two candidates today. No president is perfect and they've nearly all had significant flaws and missteps by them and their cabinet. I'm not talking about political actions foreign or domestic because Trump has, more or less, stayed close enough to his election message to keep the people who voted for him on his side. He may not be delivering as quickly as he had hoped/they wanted, but they're not so disappointed with his results insofar as they wouldn't go voting for Clinton in a do-over held today. I'm not talking big picture. I'm not talking how presidents are viewed historically. I'm talking about the logical reasons for the results of the poll Rav cited and why it felt fairly obvious to me. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I wonder if the team vs. team political structure is so ingrained in sociology that it is impossible to overcome. Of course it is. "Us vs. them" is pretty much a natural state. If we don't have an enemy, we create one. Adversity and misery is part of the human condition! Which is why a bunch of affluent white people have nothing better to do than *** at each other online.
Ramyrez said: » You're just dead set on bashing other presidents. At least (in the case of everyone BUT Obama) none of them were as bad as Carter. Ramyrez said: » I'm talking about Trump-specific things in relation to this one poll and why his numbers predictably wouldn't go down if there was another election between those two candidates today. If anything, that poll had one purpose to begin with: Bash Trump. Coming from the WP, that's pretty obvious. Look, I get it, you are on the bandwagon on bashing Trump. You don't need to focus so much on it though, it makes you look petty and desperate. Do you really want to be lumped in with the crazies out there who are constantly calling for Trump's impeachment on a daily basis? Or those who are stating that the FBI "investigation" on Trump is on a criminal basis? Ramyrez said: » No president is perfect and they've nearly all had significant flaws and missteps by them and their cabinet. Ramyrez said: » I'm talking about the logical reasons for the results of the poll Rav cited and why it felt fairly obvious to me. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Look, I get it, you are on the bandwagon on bashing Trump. You don't need to focus so much on it though, it makes you look petty and desperate. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Fine. Just don't hold Trump to that standard and ignore everything else. ...? What are you even talking about? I said that his actions that he committed that would have traditionally torpedoed a candidate were either supported by or ignored by the people who voted for him, and that didn't change. Then I ripped Hillary for being a big phony. Offline
Posts: 35422
Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Look, I get it, you are on the bandwagon on bashing Trump. You don't need to focus so much on it though, it makes you look petty and desperate. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Fine. Just don't hold Trump to that standard and ignore everything else. ...? What are you even talking about? I said that his actions that he committed that would have traditionally torpedoed a candidate were either supported by or ignored by the people who voted for him, and that didn't change. Then I ripped Hillary for being a big phony. We are talking about how we don't know what we are talking about ! Ramyrez said: » I said that his actions that he committed that would have traditionally torpedoed a candidate were either supported by or ignored by the people who voted for him, and that didn't change. You seem to be attacking Trump and his voters. That's really going to get another liberal/democrat in power, isn't it? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » I said that his actions that he committed that would have traditionally torpedoed a candidate were either supported by or ignored by the people who voted for him, and that didn't change. You seem to be attacking Trump and his voters. That's really going to get another liberal/democrat in power, isn't it? Jesus Christ. You're bending over backward to be offended here. What are you, a feminist? Offended? Not really.
Just calling you out on your double standard. In case you haven't realized it yet. Flynn May Now Face Criminal Proscution
Leaders of House panel say he didn't get permission for work in Russia, Turkey Quote: (Newser) – Michael Flynn's Russia headache just got worse: The two heads of the House Oversight Committee say the erstwhile national security adviser probably broke the law in regard to his foreign business dealings, reports the Washington Post. GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings say they reviewed classified military documents and found that Flynn never received the proper permission to accept payments for a speech in Russia and for lobbying on behalf of Turkey. That means Flynn could face criminal prosecution and may have to surrender any money received, reports the AP. "As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey, or anybody else," said Chaffetz of the former general, per the New York Times. “"And it appears as if he did take that money. It was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for a violation of law." Added Cummings: "He was supposed to get permission, he was supposed to report it, and he didn’t." The White House has denied the panel's request for more documents related to Flynn's hiring and subsequent departure, reports the Hill. Flynn resigned in February over phone calls he made to the Russian ambassador before assuming office. Offline
Posts: 35422
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Fone and Niko's worst nightmare. Feminist Whiskey with a taste of Hillary. All it needs is bill Clinton branded Cuban cigars Let me guess it tastes like liberal tears ? Offline
Posts: 2442
Offline
Posts: 2442
fonewear said: » Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Look, I get it, you are on the bandwagon on bashing Trump. You don't need to focus so much on it though, it makes you look petty and desperate. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Fine. Just don't hold Trump to that standard and ignore everything else. ...? What are you even talking about? I said that his actions that he committed that would have traditionally torpedoed a candidate were either supported by or ignored by the people who voted for him, and that didn't change. Then I ripped Hillary for being a big phony. We are talking about how we don't know what we are talking about ! I HAVE EMPATHY FOR THIS STATEMENT eliroo said: » Liberal Tears is for cleaning your guns, wouldn't recommend drinking it. Because nothing is better for metal than saltwater! Offline
Posts: 2442
Ramyrez said: » eliroo said: » Liberal Tears is for cleaning your guns, wouldn't recommend drinking it. Because nothing is better for metal than saltwater! Sorry it was a gun oil: http://liberaltears.net/ eliroo said: » +1 for microaggressions for the masses! I'm pretty sure Fozzie ghostwrites most of the jokes in here.
Offline
Posts: 35422
Darkness screamed out across the galaxy as people learned of a new Amy Schumer movie:
YouTube Video Placeholder |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|