|
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. |
A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history:
President Weighted Average
Nixon '68 6.0 weeks
Carter '76 6.8 weeks
Reagan '80 6.6 weeks
Bush '88 5.3 weeks
Clinton '92 7.0 weeks
Bush '00 7.5 weeks
Obama '08 5.4 weeks
Trump '16 4.9 weeks
|
On January 16 2017 10:50 oBlade wrote:A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history: President Weighted Average
Nixon '68 6.0 weeks
Carter '76 6.8 weeks
Reagan '80 6.6 weeks
Bush '88 5.3 weeks
Clinton '92 7.0 weeks
Bush '00 7.5 weeks
Obama '08 5.4 weeks
Trump '16 4.9 weeks
He is being badly underestimated.
|
On January 16 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 10:50 oBlade wrote:A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history: President Weighted Average
Nixon '68 6.0 weeks
Carter '76 6.8 weeks
Reagan '80 6.6 weeks
Bush '88 5.3 weeks
Clinton '92 7.0 weeks
Bush '00 7.5 weeks
Obama '08 5.4 weeks
Trump '16 4.9 weeks He is being badly underestimated.
The only way this is true is if speed had anything to do with quality or competence. It doesnt. So this is irrelevant at best. At worst it shows his recklessness. As somebody without political experience, he probably should have been one of the slower in history and done his homework.
|
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama. You don't replicate his style, you replicate the " say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines. And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers. It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though. Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it. Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base. To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now. What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas". I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny. Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans. Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage.
there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues.
and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones)
he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate.
and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world.
edit: fixed some typoes/errors
|
On January 16 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 10:35 Nyxisto wrote:On January 16 2017 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 10:21 Doodsmack wrote:On January 16 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote:This is brilliant: The incoming Trump administration is considering moving White House press briefings out of the West Wing to accommodate more than the “Washington media elite,” President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary said.
“This is about greater accessibility, more people in the process,” Sean Spicer said Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz.” Involving more people, including bloggers and others who aren’t from the mainstream media, “should be seen as a welcome change,” he said.
Spicer and other Trump officials said no decisions had been made.
Their comments followed a report Saturday by Esquire, citing unidentified officials from the transition team, that the new administration may move the press corps out of the main White House building altogether because of antagonism between Trump and the media.
Any change would be made for logistical reasons, in response to heavy demand from media organizations, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday. Source. Legacy/mainstream media is at risk of being rendered largely impotent over the next four years. Trump is systematically neutering them. This is only happening in the minds of Trump supporters. Really? The grand backfiring of "fake news" and Trump's election despite the overt opposition of mainstream/legacy media aren't evidence enough for you? the only thing this is evidence for is that in Trump's words he "could shoot someone on fifth avenue and the people would still vote for him". Nothing has any effect on Trump because people treat his disasters as an asset. They're trying to turn the US into a joke If Trump's lucky, all of his opponents will take him as unseriously as you do. He'll have nothing to worry about.
I didn't say I'm not taking him seriously, given the power he has I obviously have to take him seriously. I (and he himself) have been saying that his followers are so zealously loyal that there's no way to disappoint them in the first place. If he says something incredibly ignorant it's just him playing 8D quantum yahtzee with his political opponents.
He is 'anti-establishment' and for his followers that is apparently enough.
Also in an interview with the German Bild that will come out tomorrow Trump has apparently called NATO obsolete and wants to slap a 35% tariff on BMW.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump bashing CIA director Brennan on his Twitter for his comments on Trump twitting too much and not taking Russia seriously enough.
lol
|
Is he asking if the CIA director was the leaker? What a petulant child.
Ticking time bomb. I warned yall. Just wait for the catastrophic fuck up. A question of when, not if.
|
On January 16 2017 10:59 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 10:50 oBlade wrote:A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history: President Weighted Average
Nixon '68 6.0 weeks
Carter '76 6.8 weeks
Reagan '80 6.6 weeks
Bush '88 5.3 weeks
Clinton '92 7.0 weeks
Bush '00 7.5 weeks
Obama '08 5.4 weeks
Trump '16 4.9 weeks He is being badly underestimated. The only way this is true is if speed had anything to do with quality or competence. It doesnt. So this is irrelevant at best. At worst it shows his recklessness. As somebody without political experience, he probably should have been one of the slower in history and done his homework.
I think his picks show that he did do his homework. His appointees line up very well with what he campaigned on.
|
On January 16 2017 11:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama. You don't replicate his style, you replicate the " say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines. And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers. It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though. Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it. Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base. To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now. What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas". I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny. Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans. Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment. a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones) he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate. and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world. edit: fixed some typoes/errors
Maybe only in your mind.
Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority.
Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory.
|
On January 16 2017 10:50 oBlade wrote:A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history: President Weighted Average
Nixon '68 6.0 weeks
Carter '76 6.8 weeks
Reagan '80 6.6 weeks
Bush '88 5.3 weeks
Clinton '92 7.0 weeks
Bush '00 7.5 weeks
Obama '08 5.4 weeks
Trump '16 4.9 weeks
do you have a link to the source? I'd like to see what else they said about the topic, and it looks like it was pulled from an article or somesuch.
|
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy.
|
On January 16 2017 11:56 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 11:04 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama. You don't replicate his style, you replicate the " say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines. And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers. It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though. Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it. Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base. To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now. What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas". I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny. Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans. Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment. a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones) he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate. and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world. edit: fixed some typoes/errors Maybe only in your mind. Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority. Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory.
hmm, I think you'll need someone else to go over stuff with you, I keep LOL'ing at how utterly absurd, clueless, and delusional your statements are. so I don't think i'll be able to debate too constructively with you.
also, you're factually wrong, trump did not get an overwhelming victory, it was not remotely near an overwhelming victory. it was an underwhelming victory. and the DNC do not run the media. nor were they particularly dirty by the standards of politics.
not sure what oyu mean throwing sjw in for a form of leadership.
but trump is still simply not putting everyday americans as his number 1 priority. not in fact at least; (maybe in his own mind, due to errors in his own estimations, but probably not that either based on his history).
if you want anyone to take you seriously, and you're pushing something as irregular as this, you'll have to come up with a stronger foundation of arguments to present.
|
On January 16 2017 11:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy.
correct, your point?
it seems fairly consistent with trump's views, and with some aspects of republican ideology.
he's selected a lot of people who dislike their own departments, and will look to curtail them/cut them down.
alot of republicans complain about big government, it seems therefore reasonable to select people who would rather shrink than grow the agencies they're in charge of.
not to say anything good about trump of course 
|
On January 16 2017 11:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy.
Do something novel and try to understand Trump's perspective instead of regurgitating democrat talking points.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump's picks all look like something his base could easily get behind, so I think he did his job.
|
On January 16 2017 12:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 11:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy. correct, your point? it seems fairly consistent with trump's views, and with some aspects of republican ideology. he's selected a lot of people who dislike their own departments, and will look to curtail them/cut them down. alot of republicans complain about big government, it seems therefore reasonable to select people who would rather shrink than grow the agencies they're in charge of. not to say anything good about trump of course
While what Rick Perry said about abolishing was absolutely ridiculous and stupid, he's going to use the department of energy to shift their focus from clean and renewable energy to oil and coal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 16 2017 12:28 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 12:06 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 11:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy. correct, your point? it seems fairly consistent with trump's views, and with some aspects of republican ideology. he's selected a lot of people who dislike their own departments, and will look to curtail them/cut them down. alot of republicans complain about big government, it seems therefore reasonable to select people who would rather shrink than grow the agencies they're in charge of. not to say anything good about trump of course While what Rick Perry said about abolishing was absolutely ridiculous and stupid, he's going to use the department of energy to shift their focus from clean and renewable energy to oil and coal.
I'm more interested in what he's going to do with nuclear in that position.
|
On January 16 2017 12:28 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 12:06 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 11:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy. correct, your point? it seems fairly consistent with trump's views, and with some aspects of republican ideology. he's selected a lot of people who dislike their own departments, and will look to curtail them/cut them down. alot of republicans complain about big government, it seems therefore reasonable to select people who would rather shrink than grow the agencies they're in charge of. not to say anything good about trump of course While what Rick Perry said about abolishing was absolutely ridiculous and stupid, he's going to use the department of energy to shift their focus from clean and renewable energy to oil and coal.
pretty sure the focus of the DoE is nuclear anyways.
checked it, yep. fossil fuel vs renewables is a small part of the overall DoE work.
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/FY2016BudgetSummaryTableByAppropriation_0.pdf
|
On January 16 2017 12:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 11:56 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 16 2017 11:04 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama. You don't replicate his style, you replicate the " say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines. And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers. It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though. Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it. Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base. To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now. What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas". I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny. Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans. Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment. a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones) he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate. and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world. edit: fixed some typoes/errors Maybe only in your mind. Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority. Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory. hmm, I think you'll need someone else to go over stuff with you, I keep LOL'ing at how utterly absurd, clueless, and delusional your statements are. so I don't think i'll be able to debate too constructively with you. also, you're factually wrong, trump did not get an overwhelming victory, it was not remotely near an overwhelming victory. it was an underwhelming victory. and the DNC do not run the media. nor were they particularly dirty by the standards of politics. not sure what oyu mean throwing sjw in for a form of leadership. but trump is still simply not putting everyday americans as his number 1 priority. not in fact at least; (maybe in his own mind, due to errors in his own estimations, but probably not that either based on his history). if you want anyone to take you seriously, and you're pushing something as irregular as this, you'll have to come up with a stronger foundation of arguments to present.
Someone who can't write proper English nor understand the basic comparison of 304 electoral votes to a mere 227 of Clinton shouldn't be lecturing anybody.
Someone who say "Haha you are wrong! I'm just LOL'ing" without providing any facts or explanation. Instead his first thoughts is to resort to Ad homineum attacks by calling others clueless delusional is probably someone who places emotions above it all.
|
On January 16 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 10:50 oBlade wrote:A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history: President Weighted Average
Nixon '68 6.0 weeks
Carter '76 6.8 weeks
Reagan '80 6.6 weeks
Bush '88 5.3 weeks
Clinton '92 7.0 weeks
Bush '00 7.5 weeks
Obama '08 5.4 weeks
Trump '16 4.9 weeks He is being badly underestimated.
The ability to make terrible decisions quickly is not something he's being underestimated on.
On January 16 2017 12:35 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 12:04 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 11:56 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 16 2017 11:04 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama. You don't replicate his style, you replicate the " say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines. And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers. It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though. Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it. Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base. To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now. What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas". I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny. Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans. Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment. a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones) he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate. and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world. edit: fixed some typoes/errors Maybe only in your mind. Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority. Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory. hmm, I think you'll need someone else to go over stuff with you, I keep LOL'ing at how utterly absurd, clueless, and delusional your statements are. so I don't think i'll be able to debate too constructively with you. also, you're factually wrong, trump did not get an overwhelming victory, it was not remotely near an overwhelming victory. it was an underwhelming victory. and the DNC do not run the media. nor were they particularly dirty by the standards of politics. not sure what oyu mean throwing sjw in for a form of leadership. but trump is still simply not putting everyday americans as his number 1 priority. not in fact at least; (maybe in his own mind, due to errors in his own estimations, but probably not that either based on his history). if you want anyone to take you seriously, and you're pushing something as irregular as this, you'll have to come up with a stronger foundation of arguments to present. nor understand the basic comparison of 304 electoral votes to a mere 227 of Clinton shouldn't be lecturing anybody.
Keep misrepresenting the facts. 21/25 elections in the last 100 years had bigger margins of victory (some were 400+) in the electoral college. It doesn't matter how much you parrot the idiotic 'overwhelming landslide' rhetoric put out by Trump and his team. It's simply not true, but is consistent with a lot of his hyperbole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
