|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2016 10:27 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. hillary predicted rise of populism in europe and u.s. a few years ago. you could say she predicted trump
Are you still arguing that she has good judgement? Despite all evidence to the contrary? A vague prediction about the rise of populism isn't impressive.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not really arguing with you, not worth my time
|
On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well.
In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either.
On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates.
I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p
|
Pointing out the flaws in one candidate shouldn't mean that you're making a case for the other one. It just became so much a part of this campaign that we lost sight of that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 10:09 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:08 oneofthem wrote:
for real though, she is a prime architect for the tpp, the clinton foundation is fairly innovative and shows real engagement with the problem of public-private coordination. her longrange vision of development is good. Architect of the TPP is actually going to be viewed as a negative in the current climate.
well the architect here isnt the one that actually writes the language or provisions. she could explain the asia pivot and why it isnot good for america to get entangled in the m.e., why development and institution building and rule of law are key longterm plans for globalizing world. she could talk about how medium and small enterprises, including creative ip based ones, could directly sell to global markets.
but this message only works in an optimistic mood. she is an optimist about markets and politics. it isnt quite the davos crowd she is facing though
|
On November 02 2016 10:34 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either. Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates. I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p
That is a temperament issue not judgement, and I already conceded he has atrocious temperament.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
So here's a little exercise for everyone: name one substantial thing you like and dislike about both Hillary and Trump. No back-handed compliments or non-weaknesses.
Me:
Hillary - she strikes me as a very dishonest person for whom the negative connotation of the term "career politician" would be perfectly valid. But she seems like she is willing to listen to experts and has the sense to not so something ridiculously stupid.
Trump - he clearly has no idea what he's talking about on a broad range of issues, and he often doesn't understand how dangerous he is. But he brings to the forefront a lot of neglected issues that are important but that the mainstream really refused to talk about before he became relevant.
|
On November 02 2016 10:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 02 2016 10:11 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2016 10:00 Nyxisto wrote:On November 02 2016 09:57 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 09:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 09:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 09:35 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 08:45 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
it's not that much actual substantive problems.
she's demonstrably attentive and competent. the broad strategy is good. the team is good.
what else do you want? Let's start with good judgment, which she clearly has no history of exercising while in higher positions of power. Her term as secretary of state was simply bad. Beyond that, a little bit of honesty and little less corruption would go a long away. There's reason why a vast majority of people thinks she's a liar. Powell: everything she touches is ruined Podesta: bad instincts FBI director: bad judgement Bernie Sanders: bad judgement Other staffers: wtf is she doing Powell: endorsed her Podesta: supports and advises her FBI director: declined to prosecute her Sanders: fully supporting her Other staffers: obviously working for her Dear sir or madam, I regret to inform you your post is shit, even for a shitpost. It's not a shitpost when he's quoting what these people are saying privately behind Hillary's back, which is far more likely to be honest than the nonsense that they publicly spew. A stance dismissing anything someone says publicly as nonsense must be very helpful for a Trump supporter. Lol, given that "he will be kept in check by the system" is an argument that is usually forward by Trump supporters this isn't exactly surprising. The bar for Trump is so low that the system stopping him somehow constitutes an argument in his favour. By now you could realize what you're describing is not meant to be an argument for him, but a refutation of the idea that it's in the president's power to deport the New York Times to Gitmo, or whatever alarmist claims like that people make. But what does it say about a candidate if this actually needs to be brought up frequently even if he hasn't served a single day in public office? You've already seen the worst of Hillary, she's the 'evil establishment' TM and had thirty years in power. It means nothing about Trump, what it says is that people are caught in a vortex where they've lost perspective to such a degree that they need to be reminded of basic civics. If I had some kind of TV show, every day, like a Daily Show or something, and I went on and constantly listed a bunch of people murdered by the Clintons according to conspiracy theorists, I couldn't take the pile of letters of people telling me to come back to reality as evidence and go "This proves it, why do people keep having to deny the murder charges if nothing happened, what does that tell you" and be taken seriously.
The irony of people who entertain the idea of Donald Trump as commander in chief talking about others having lost perspective is pretty rich. I just watched a Hillary Clinton TV ad that consisted only if Trump quotes. Not even his political opponent is putting a filter between him and viewers in her TV commercials.
You saying checks and balances will keep Trump in check is you saying Trump won't be able to do all the things he says he wants to do. And by the way there's not much of a check between the commander and chief and his military orders.
|
On November 02 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:34 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either. On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates. I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p That is a temperament issue not judgement, and I already conceded he has atrocious temperament.
What are your thoughts on the judgment behind going into a black church and arguing for stop and frisk in an event billed as black voter outreach?
|
On November 02 2016 09:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 09:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2016 09:00 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly I found it to be a rather insipid and dull play. Not sure why it was as popular as it was. Wait, you saw Hamilton? Are you loaded or just happen to see super popular broadway show that are impossible to get tickets for? I wish. A fair bit of it can be watched online though. It really sort of underwhelmed compared to how much hype I have heard for it in the past year. it might be one of those you gotta do it live things. broadway seems like it would be. I have seen plenty of Broadway plays both live and on video. Video is no worse. The issue is just that the premise that it's being praised for just doesn't resonate with me. Like the Lincoln movie I also thought was sucky, it tried to be profound but only managed to be trite while appealing to people who wanted to see something profound in it.
Im not sure how you can say watching a broadway play on video is the same as actually watching it. I mean I'll give you a pass for being a contrarian on alot of things but you've got to be kidding me...
Things to like about Hillary - Smart experienced policy wonk.
Issues - probably not going to do much if anything to break the status quo of the political sphere in terms of money and outside influence in politics.
Things to like about Drumpf - standard change candidate, but really it could have been any angry old fart that people got behind.
Issues- everything else.
|
On November 02 2016 10:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:34 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either. On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates. I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p That is a temperament issue not judgement, and I already conceded he has atrocious temperament. What are your thoughts on the judgment behind going into a black church and arguing for stop and frisk?
That shows integrity, he is saying what he believes regardless of his audience. It is the exact opposite of Hillary pretending to like hot sauce or some shit in a black radio show which was painfully cringe. It seems like a political misstep, but he's not a politician so it's not really a big deal.
|
On November 02 2016 10:56 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:24 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 02 2016 10:11 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2016 10:00 Nyxisto wrote:On November 02 2016 09:57 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 09:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 09:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 09:35 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Let's start with good judgment, which she clearly has no history of exercising while in higher positions of power. Her term as secretary of state was simply bad. Beyond that, a little bit of honesty and little less corruption would go a long away. There's reason why a vast majority of people thinks she's a liar. Powell: everything she touches is ruined Podesta: bad instincts FBI director: bad judgement Bernie Sanders: bad judgement Other staffers: wtf is she doing Powell: endorsed her Podesta: supports and advises her FBI director: declined to prosecute her Sanders: fully supporting her Other staffers: obviously working for her Dear sir or madam, I regret to inform you your post is shit, even for a shitpost. It's not a shitpost when he's quoting what these people are saying privately behind Hillary's back, which is far more likely to be honest than the nonsense that they publicly spew. A stance dismissing anything someone says publicly as nonsense must be very helpful for a Trump supporter. Lol, given that "he will be kept in check by the system" is an argument that is usually forward by Trump supporters this isn't exactly surprising. The bar for Trump is so low that the system stopping him somehow constitutes an argument in his favour. By now you could realize what you're describing is not meant to be an argument for him, but a refutation of the idea that it's in the president's power to deport the New York Times to Gitmo, or whatever alarmist claims like that people make. But what does it say about a candidate if this actually needs to be brought up frequently even if he hasn't served a single day in public office? You've already seen the worst of Hillary, she's the 'evil establishment' TM and had thirty years in power. It means nothing about Trump, what it says is that people are caught in a vortex where they've lost perspective to such a degree that they need to be reminded of basic civics. If I had some kind of TV show, every day, like a Daily Show or something, and I went on and constantly listed a bunch of people murdered by the Clintons according to conspiracy theorists, I couldn't take the pile of letters of people telling me to come back to reality as evidence and go "This proves it, why do people keep having to deny the murder charges if nothing happened, what does that tell you" and be taken seriously. The irony of people who entertain the idea of Donald Trump as commander in chief talking about others having lost perspective is pretty rich. I just watched a Hillary Clinton TV ad that consisted only if Trump quotes. Not even his political opponent is putting a filter between him and viewers in her TV commercials.
If in any circumstance, you've set up conditions such that you believe disagreement with an argument actually proves you're right, you've very probably fucked up somewhere. And again, you don't have to vote for Trump to see through the alarmism.
On November 02 2016 10:56 Doodsmack wrote:
You saying checks and balances will keep Trump in check is you saying Trump won't be able to do all the things he says he wants to do. And by the way there's not much of a check between the commander and chief and his military orders.
No president can do everything they want to do as your middle school teachers probably explained at some point. This is not a revelation, and it's getting old.
|
On November 02 2016 11:02 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:57 Doodsmack wrote:On November 02 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:34 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either. On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates. I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p That is a temperament issue not judgement, and I already conceded he has atrocious temperament. What are your thoughts on the judgment behind going into a black church and arguing for stop and frisk? That shows integrity, he is saying what he believes regardless of his audience. It is the exact opposite of Hillary pretending to like hot sauce or some shit in a black radio show which was painfully cringe. It seems like a political misstep, but he's not a politician so it's not really a big deal.
So if I were to tell you that in instances where you say Hillary showed bad judgment, she in fact was just sticking to her guns, that means it wasn't bad judgment?
|
The basic problem of politics: it's sooooo easy to explain the same thing in VERY different ways, so it's very easy to feed people stories that fit their preconceptions, and very easy for people to take the same event and think it went in wildly different ways. It's a terrible system for finding the truth.
|
Watching it in Broadway vs. watching a video isn't the same, it's just a tradeoff of "the authentic experience" versus convenience. The experience is more valuable for people who haven't spent much time in NYC than for those who have, and the artistic merit of the composition itself doesn't depend much on how you watch it. So video is, as I put it, not worse.
|
On November 02 2016 11:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:56 Doodsmack wrote:On November 02 2016 10:24 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 02 2016 10:11 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2016 10:00 Nyxisto wrote:On November 02 2016 09:57 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 09:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 09:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 09:35 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
Powell: everything she touches is ruined
Podesta: bad instincts
FBI director: bad judgement
Bernie Sanders: bad judgement
Other staffers: wtf is she doing Powell: endorsed her Podesta: supports and advises her FBI director: declined to prosecute her Sanders: fully supporting her Other staffers: obviously working for her Dear sir or madam, I regret to inform you your post is shit, even for a shitpost. It's not a shitpost when he's quoting what these people are saying privately behind Hillary's back, which is far more likely to be honest than the nonsense that they publicly spew. A stance dismissing anything someone says publicly as nonsense must be very helpful for a Trump supporter. Lol, given that "he will be kept in check by the system" is an argument that is usually forward by Trump supporters this isn't exactly surprising. The bar for Trump is so low that the system stopping him somehow constitutes an argument in his favour. By now you could realize what you're describing is not meant to be an argument for him, but a refutation of the idea that it's in the president's power to deport the New York Times to Gitmo, or whatever alarmist claims like that people make. But what does it say about a candidate if this actually needs to be brought up frequently even if he hasn't served a single day in public office? You've already seen the worst of Hillary, she's the 'evil establishment' TM and had thirty years in power. It means nothing about Trump, what it says is that people are caught in a vortex where they've lost perspective to such a degree that they need to be reminded of basic civics. If I had some kind of TV show, every day, like a Daily Show or something, and I went on and constantly listed a bunch of people murdered by the Clintons according to conspiracy theorists, I couldn't take the pile of letters of people telling me to come back to reality as evidence and go "This proves it, why do people keep having to deny the murder charges if nothing happened, what does that tell you" and be taken seriously. The irony of people who entertain the idea of Donald Trump as commander in chief talking about others having lost perspective is pretty rich. I just watched a Hillary Clinton TV ad that consisted only if Trump quotes. Not even his political opponent is putting a filter between him and viewers in her TV commercials. If in any circumstance, you've set up conditions such that you believe disagreement with an argument actually proves you're right, you've very probably fucked up somewhere. And again, you don't have to vote for Trump to see through the alarmism. Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 10:56 Doodsmack wrote:
You saying checks and balances will keep Trump in check is you saying Trump won't be able to do all the things he says he wants to do. And by the way there's not much of a check between the commander and chief and his military orders. No president can do everything they want to do as your middle school teachers probably explained at some point. This is not a revelation, and it's getting old.
Okay well hopefully Trump won't deliberately kill civilians or use forms of torture worse than waterboarding, like he said he wanted to do during debates. The generals will check him on that one by resigning in protest.
edit: or bomb Iran because they stopped a US boat in their waters, and took pictures. That's preferable to the diplomatic channels established by Obama and Kerry which solved that situation within a day.
edit2: he actually said he'd probably get rid of Obama's generals so that check is out the window.
edit3: it took Nixon's AG resigning in protest to check Nixon on prosecution requests.
|
On November 02 2016 11:07 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 11:02 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:57 Doodsmack wrote:On November 02 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:34 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either. On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates. I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p That is a temperament issue not judgement, and I already conceded he has atrocious temperament. What are your thoughts on the judgment behind going into a black church and arguing for stop and frisk? That shows integrity, he is saying what he believes regardless of his audience. It is the exact opposite of Hillary pretending to like hot sauce or some shit in a black radio show which was painfully cringe. It seems like a political misstep, but he's not a politician so it's not really a big deal. So if I were to tell you that in instances where you say Hillary showed bad judgment, she in fact was just sticking to her guns, that means it wasn't bad judgment?
depends on what the action is, he isn't a politician, meaning he speaks the same exact way to everyone. If she was secretary of state for example, and messed up all of her foreign policy conquests, that is evidence of bad judgement, oh wait!.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
legallord u should look at the video i posted.
|
On November 02 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 11:07 Doodsmack wrote:On November 02 2016 11:02 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:57 Doodsmack wrote:On November 02 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:34 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:16 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 10:14 Tachion wrote:On November 02 2016 10:04 biology]major wrote:
Don't attribute the bar being low for trump supporters when your candidate has shit judgement corroborated by her own people. The bar has been lowered on both sides, for different reasons. I will concede Trump has shit temperament, which is also an equally valuable trait in a leader.
I will also add that judgement and temperament are not learned traits, and are highly innate. calling out Hillary for bad judgement while supporting Trump is pretty akin to throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't you say? Nope, he has good instincts. Most recent example is how he predicted the Weiner scandal right on the money. He has had some crazy predictions in the past as well. In hindsight, just about every damn thing Trump has done since the primaries has been in bad judgement. All he had to do was SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the Clinton scandals do their thing, but he constantly gets himself into petty squabbles for reasons that no sane campaign team would ever sign off on. Maybe this falls into the shit temperament category since it seems mostly impulsive, but it certainly doesn't look like good judgement either. On November 02 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump has different problems than Hillary. Regardless, there's no reason why we shouldn't shit on both candidates. I am all for shitting on both. I just don't think you should knock on one candidate for a flaw that clearly hinders the other as well :p That is a temperament issue not judgement, and I already conceded he has atrocious temperament. What are your thoughts on the judgment behind going into a black church and arguing for stop and frisk? That shows integrity, he is saying what he believes regardless of his audience. It is the exact opposite of Hillary pretending to like hot sauce or some shit in a black radio show which was painfully cringe. It seems like a political misstep, but he's not a politician so it's not really a big deal. So if I were to tell you that in instances where you say Hillary showed bad judgment, she in fact was just sticking to her guns, that means it wasn't bad judgment? depends on what the action is, he isn't a politician, meaning he speaks the same exact way to everyone. If she was secretary of state for example, and messed up all of her foreign policy conquests, that is evidence of bad judgement.
And he lies at all times. Like every word out of his mouth is a lie because he is a con man that will say anything to get elected. Just like he will say anything to close a deal and the screw everyone over who was involved when it fails. He has a long his history of doing so. This time it will be the American people he screws over when the deal doesn't work out the way he wants it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
