EPTAm I crazy for supporting Donald Trump? - Page 5
| Blogs > Starlightsun |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
Wow is that really what you think? I mean I am not surprised, but if you think Hillary will actually be decent in anyway, I think you'll be in for a shock when she becomes president. She'll be far worse then Trump and I think many recent events have shown how corrupt she is as well. (As a note, I think both candidates suck as well as both parties.) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44391 Posts
On July 27 2016 01:02 blade55555 wrote: Wow is that really what you think? I mean I am not surprised, but if you think Hillary will actually be decent in anyway, I think you'll be in for a shock when she becomes president. She'll be far worse then Trump and I think many recent events have shown how corrupt she is as well. (As a note, I think both candidates suck as well as both parties.) While Hillary is far from perfect, I think there is zero reason to think that Hillary would be worse than Trump. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Now, the disqualifications of the other major party candidate are of a completely different order. Trump is literally unfit for office. It's an offense to decent people everywhere that he was ever even in the running. He is a vapid egoist who has no relation to the world outside his coddled life. We live in a world of nuclear detente (I guess everyone forgot about that since it's been half a generation??) on top of the usual workaday tribal aggressive tendencies and macro politicoeconomic resource-cornering, staring down the barrel of a climate change rocket launcher with half us throwing baseballs at the launch button. We've already undergone irreversible species and ecosystem loss in the last few hundred years comparable to mass extinction events from earth's geologically measured history. In this situation, the last thing we need is a destabilizing force in the most relevant global political entity and de facto world economic anchor, the united states. And that's putting it lightly. Saying that you want to shake things up is like saying "splicing ropes hasn't been getting our sinking ship anywhere, let's burn it". And that's literally all you could say, since there are zero substantive proposals you'd be voting for. It's all vacuum and social manipulation. The best thing a Trump presidency could hope for is total impotence. If it accomplished anything it'd be the destruction of previous generations' work. If you can't see this then you are delusional or too emotionally and intellectually immature to operate in the 21st century. You are not being clever by making a cynical bet against status quo systems of government. You are gambling with the planet's future, on a tip from your crazy uncle's chain email. @Barrin, if your pedantic bent is unsatisfied with this, give Sam Harris a go, def your style: | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
              Am i crazy for reading this? | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2497 Posts
On July 27 2016 03:00 fluidrone wrote: Am i crazy for reading this? Yes? But then again its like watching a tv show reading this thread; the outcome is allready selected; choose oprion B or A; Demo-cracy | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On July 26 2016 08:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yes. Melliflue just gave a whole bunch of reasons why, as have many other people, both in this thread and in the US Politics thread  I strongly disagree. Melliflue gave a prime example of the common American mindset about politics of "my team is always good and right, the other is always destructive and wrong". To prove his point he mostly used subjective evaluation of actions and statements based solely on his own beliefs completely disregarding any other possible or likely reasons. To round it off he displayed to us how people's opinions can be easily swayed by utter bullshit as long as it is presented in a semi-fancy way and reinforces a person's already pre-existing bias: On July 26 2016 03:29 Melliflue wrote: He has lied much more than other politicians. Politifact give each claim it checks a rank from 'True' to 'Pants on Fire'. Here are the overall number (and percentage) of 'False' and 'Pants on Fire' statements from several major politicians; Donald Trump 111 (55%) Hilary Clinton 30 (16%) Barack Obama 80 (14%) Bernie Sanders 12 (12%) Paul Ryan 8 (13%) Marco Rubio 25 (18%) Ted Cruz 39 (34%) Donald Trump objectively lies much more than other politicians. How can you possibly use this with a straight face as a source? Is this supposed to mean that Trump has made only 200 statements since he started running for president? Gee, I know that his political career has been very short so far, but I am pretty sure every single one of his speeches includes at least a 100 statements, never mind interviews he has given or public discussions he has taken part in. Or are you telling me that they have evaluated only 200 statements of him because 95+% of the time he speaks in imperatives and rhetorical questions? This site also seems to suggest that Clinton has been a very quiet gal during her 8 years as a senator and 4 years as the Secretary of State considering that there are less than 200 quotes from here. If you bothered to go through the list of false statements (e.g. for Trump and Clinton) you would have noticed that there are quite a few repetitions, several obvious slips of tongue (despite the site's claim that they do not evaluate those), and at least a few statements that beg for context or explanation on how they are relevant. At the end of the day, it does not really matter if there are 111 false statements of Trump or only 80. There are far more than enough quotes that are so absurd and outrageous that any sane person would get a headache. But the fact of the matter is: The only objective statement based on this site about a comparison between the people included is that Trump is quoted disproportionately more than anybody else. In less than a year Trump has been evaluated 200 times. Obama having two terms as president clocks in only ~70/year. Clinton has been in two presidential races and has 12 years as a top government official, but has less quotes than Trump and about 15 quotes/year (for 12 years). Trump has more "true" and "mostly true" statements in less than one year than almost all of the people you compare him with get on average per year (counting ALL their statements from "true" to "pants on fire"). Using this site as a metric on the frequency of lies of different politicians is absurd considering how incomplete their statement collection is. The fact that they seem unable to filter out repetitions and slips of tongue despite the relatively tiny amount of quotes they have as well as their weird bias (intentional or not) are simply more reasons to take any simple conclusions based on their collection with more than just a grain of salt. Hilary's e-mail scandal makes her seem arrogant, that she believed the rules should be bent for her. Trump University was a scam that took money from normal citizens. Hilary's history with cattle futures is dodgy but there is nothing concrete we can say about that; it just looks very suspicious. Trump University is currently fighting legal cases, including for fraud, because the university massively mislead what it was offering. We seem to weigh differently these people's "flaws". I, for my part, could hardly have any lower opinion of either of the presidential candidates. I make little difference between a power-hungry, money-grabbing turncoat and another. He doesn't have to say anything about it. He owned the whole thing for 20 years. I think that we can assume he was a supporter of it. If he had any moral objection against it then he could have stopped it. Oh, apparently I did not understand what you meant. Any Miss pageant is a mind-numbing waste of time, but I do not understand how you could possibly have any moral objection against it. Trump just managed to make some money out of willing participants and an audience with very low standards as to what constitutes entertainment. If he wanted to dismiss Megyn Kelly then he could have done so without suggesting she was on her period. He had already said that he did not respect her as a journalist earlier in that interview and he could have said she was only trying to embarrass him or said many other things. However, there was no need to say what he did. Megyn Kelly is an integral part of something that actively divides the American society. Trump's words were neither smart nor tactful. However, him saying them to some low-life pseudo-journalist is by no means proof of misogyny. He was forced by the moderator to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the questions, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion?" and "for the woman?" Nobody forced Trump to say "There has to be some form of punishment" and "yes". The moderator was doing his job by not letting Trump avoid the question, because a lot of people wanted to know what Trump's attitude towards abortion was. Of course, the moderator was doing his job and did it well. You can clearly see that Trump was trying to avoid a concrete answer, but the moderator dug deeper until he managed to squeeze out a complete answer from Trump. The fact of the matter is that at that point answering "no" may have ended Trump's chances of becoming presidential candidate. It's a stupid position, but it is the vastly predominant position of the republican electorate. There was no other option but to say "yes" in this interview. If anything, the way Trump was trying to avoid the question would hint that he lacks the clear cut "pro-life" sentiments that are common amongst republicans. This, of course, is a mere speculation. Point is: At that point in time, there was no other option but saying "yes". There is no arguing that what he has said there is plain stupid. No sane person could try to defend this. But it may be worth considering: How relevant would this trait of his be if he were the president? I cannot imagine him making weekly comments encouraging people to brawl on the streets. Would his "violent" side have any impact on the US? It may or it may not. Either way, the linked statements are a decent testament to him being a moron. As far as violence is concerned, there is another point worth mentioning. Trump claims to want to follow far less aggressive foreign politics. Less US military interventions abroad would directly translate in less American combat deaths. On the other hand, Hillary has proven to fully support the military industrial complex and have little to no moral doubts to support questionable military operations... + Show Spoiler + Kelly was quoting Trump back to him. I think many people want to know, and have the right to know, what a (potential) presidential candidate thinks of women. I see nothing wrong with her question. I wish candidates were more often challenged like that. Spend a bit of time with google to find out some of the other things he has said about women or how he has treated them. It would be good for you to do a bit of research on Trump on your own, even if it just about one topic. I would also point you in the direction of his attitude towards journalists as another thing you should know about him. But overall, if you support Donald Trump then you will spend a lot of time defending him. Nobody should have to spend so much effort defending a presidential candidate from accusations of being a misogynistic, supercilious, violent, manipulative, lying, racist, litigious conman. No other presidential candidate has been attacked as much as him ever since I can remember. I am not really following US media, but the media in Western Europe has been all over him for every possible thing. Obviously, there is a whole lot of reasons as you have pointed out and given plenty of examples. However, a stunning amount of the anti-Trump articles around here have outrageous titles, but somehow you are left wondering what exactly the scandal was supposed to be after reading them. Since journalists around here are known to be prone of copying US media, I would not be surprised if the US had a disproportionate amount of anti-Trump articles just for the sake of writing something against him without really having any notable content. Anyway, your description of Trump in the last sentence is perfectly fitting to quite a few notable republicans and certainly not far off for Hillary, either. | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
Another issue i have is in relations. I don't know that trump is good for us relations, but Hillary is also a woman which is condemned by the muslim world where we are having the majority of our diplomatic relation problems. It doesn't matter so much since Muslim countries do not have an adaptive legal system, but rather a party driven one which uses religion to kill people from other parties and maintain power. I don't really think if it was bernie or hillary you get to different of a result. Similarly if it was trump or carson i think the result is pretty similar. The only superpuppet candidate this year that is legitimately crazy is the freedomworks shut down the government like mad and do it in the name of god Ted Cruz. Other than that, just look at the party history and don't focus so much on candidates. Your family probably doesn't have anyone who works in politics. | ||
|
Chupacabra(UCSD)
Mexico225 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 26 2016 23:23 Barrin wrote: You didn't qualify it with something like "some", so "all" was implied. But why? More to the point: Is it only a cause not to vote for Trump, or are you also implying that it is a cause to vote for Hillary? So are you trying to make the point that because we can't predict any specific thing with certainty that therefore we can't make good guesses about anything? We can't know that Trump will appoint 3 Supreme Court justices who join a supermajority that overturns all those precedents so that possibility/probability is not sufficient reason to vote against Trump? I just don't get what you are trying to do here. More to the point: do you think that if Trump were elected he would appoint judges who would overturn precedents like those farv listed? or not? | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
| ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
|
n3p
93 Posts
On July 27 2016 17:56 Skynx wrote: Trump is like a meepo lastpicker into an all-carry lineup, who then proceeds to afk farm ancients and rushes moon shard only to consume it immediately while flaming his supports for not warding. This....wow, this....this explains it all so clearly. This explains everything a thousand times better than a political essay. Thank you, my friend. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5626 Posts
On July 24 2016 02:51 Starlightsun wrote: It seems that everyone who I like and respect not only dislikes Donald Trump but hates him passionately. My family are pretty smart and easy going people, but all of the sudden with Trump they show extreme disgust and revel in the most petty gossip against him. I hear all over the media and in conversation how only stupid and bigoted people could possibly support him. And yet to me, when looking at the whole field of candidates we were offered, he honestly seems the most appealing. In real life Iʻm actually afraid to say this to anyone for fear of being ostracized. The constant criticisms of him often strike me as petty, irrelevant and gossipy. This is perhaps a result of him offering little of substance to be critiqued. That is my main gripe with him actually - how vague he is on details. All he is offering are big promises that he will not deliver on, but I expect no less from any politician. So what is my liking based on? I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand, whether for good or ill I honestly canʻt tell. But that gamble seems better than the certainty of continued rule by the two parties, who spend all their time sabotaging each other and trying to score points. Trump is the only candidate that strikes me as an individual rather than a cog in the two party machine. There's nothing wrong with supporting Trump. People who think he's going to blow up the world are unhinged. People who think he's Hitler are emotional children. You can't take those people seriously on the subject of the election because they don't even respect themselves enough not to become such dupes. You're not the clueless victim of a used car salesman in what was otherwise a political sea of George Washingtons and Abe Lincolns. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Just ignore the media-fed hysteria people have. I've never seen more flagrant dishonesty, spin, and pure bullshit produced by the media just to get their #1 priority, ratings. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:15 oBlade wrote: There's nothing wrong with supporting Trump. People who think he's going to blow up the world are unhinged. People who think he's Hitler are emotional children. You can't take those people seriously on the subject of the election because they don't even respect themselves enough not to become such dupes. You're not the clueless victim of a used car salesman in what was otherwise a political sea of George Washingtons and Abe Lincolns. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Just ignore the media-fed hysteria people have. I've never seen more flagrant dishonesty, spin, and pure bullshit produced by the media just to get their #1 priority, ratings. What is your plan Stan? What are you hoping is going to happen? | ||
|
SlammerIV
United States526 Posts
Trump has released a solid list of people he would put on the supreme court and I think this alone is enough to support him as the next president is likely going to appoint 2 if not 3 justices. For me there are many other political reasons to support trump as well but I won't go into them. The most important thing I would like to point out is how emotional our political process seems to have become, people seem to value emotion and "feeling" over logical analysis. I don't agree with the liberal policies of Hillary, Obama and the democrat party but I do understand and respect why many people hold those views. By the same token I feel people need to realize that many of Trumps policies are the result of sober, logical reasoning, even if you may disagree with them at least you should respect differences of opinion, too often on the internet I see Hurr durr Trump Nazi!!! Trump literally the worst human being on the face of the planet (To be fair similar things about Hillary). Lets try to have a reasonably discussion of policy and the repercussions of policy if implemented rather than emotional sensationalism. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On July 28 2016 03:18 SlammerIV wrote: By the same token I feel people need to realize that many of Trumps policies are the result of sober, logical reasoning, even if you may disagree with them at least you should respect differences of opinion, too often on the internet I see Hurr durr Trump Nazi!!! Lets try to have a reasonably discussion of policy and the repercussions of policy if implemented rather than emotional sensationalism. Oh I see, you mean like calling for russian hackers to access and leak classified communications? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5626 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4iTCwA8.jpg)
