Who Will Be the LAST Trump Supporting Poster to Be Banned?

[LaCroix]

You can say that, but you can't have a discussion around it. The moment you do, you have to start supporting why you think Trump would look out for your interests better than Hillary, and also why the negatives make it worthwhile. That breaks down almost immediately, because it is pretty hard to justify on reason.

This was attempted, of course. Much was made of Hilars email servers, or Benghazi. Of course, you don't hear anything about that anymore, since Trump has conclusively proven that he is a objectively much greater security risk than Hillary could ever hope to be, as an example. So instead you just get memes and bullshit.

You can claim you are a Trump supporter because of his supposed love of coal mining, but once you start to unpack that...well, it is pretty obviously bullshit. It is trivial to show that Trump cannot do anything for you, and will be fucking you in the process of pretending to do something for you. So people who truly believed that are no longer Trump supporters, because, you know - FACTS.

And people who continue to support him and claim that as their basis are obviously lying, since objective reality has shown that Trump won't actually help them - so then rational people ask "Well, the stated reason is obviously not true, so what is the REAL reason?". And the answer to that is odious.

So we are back to your trolling. and then getting banned for trolling.

It is the only tool you guys have left in the toolbox when it comes to any attempt at rational discourse.

republicans hated on hillary for emails and benghazi because they were easy reasons to hate on her. people didn't actually care about either, because as you explained republicans don't care now that the shoe is on the other foot. similarly, democrats will care far more about things trump does that other democratic presidents have either exactly done or somewhat-similarly done

coal miners see trump as willing to help him. you can argue whatever you want, but coal miners don't have time or probably much care to actually research the issues themselves. same with all the democrats regarding dakota access. most people don't research or look into facts. people are just so obsessed about trump and FLABBERGASTED how he won that they create weird terms like post-truth world, etc.

[Berkut]

I am not a Democrat though, and the people who despise Trump for the reason I do do so for completely non-partisan reasons.

I am sure there are Dems out there who would hate any Republican who got elected. If Kasich or Bush was President right now, there would be Dems hating on them. That is perfectly normal.

And if Trump was a Democrat, there would be plenty of Dems who would be defending him.

But we aren't talking about that. He is a man worthy of contempt because of reasons that have nothing to do with the fake (R) after his name. He is not even an actual Republican in any meaningful sense.

So no, your attempt to troll some more and claim that the insane disgust people have with Trump is just normal partisan politics is complete bullshit. It says much more about you than it does anyone else.

Trump is not the anti-Hillary.

[CountDeMoney]

Well they do seem to think reality TV stars with a history of public personal flaws and no other qualifications should be President. That strikes me as damning enough.

It's going to turn out to be the greatest Faustian gamble of all time--although I don't think even Faust was told outright how it was going to go down in the end like Trump voters were.

Hope those tax cuts for the wealthy, the con of imaginary jobs returning and rolling back decades of regulations in the national interest were worth it.

But that's not what it was all about after all, now was it.

[LaCroix]

I am not a Democrat though, and the people who despise Trump for the reason I do do so for completely non-partisan reasons.

I am sure there are Dems out there who would hate any Republican who got elected. If Kasich or Bush was President right now, there would be Dems hating on them. That is perfectly normal.

And if Trump was a Democrat, there would be plenty of Dems who would be defending him.

But we aren't talking about that. He is a man worthy of contempt because of reasons that have nothing to do with the fake (R) after his name. He is not even an actual Republican in any meaningful sense.

So no, your attempt to troll some more and claim that the insane disgust people have with Trump is just normal partisan politics is complete bullshit. It says much more about you than it does anyone else.

Trump is not the anti-Hillary.

sure you are. you're one of small group of former republicans (independents?) who migrated over to the democrat side. a few other posters here have done so as well. you and a few others don't like the direction the republicans are headed. but the majority of states chose that direction for lots of different reasons. so far, trump has been true to those reasons.

at least half the country, probably far more than that, doesn't actually care about foreign policy. they care about America, because we're an exceptional country full of exceptional people, and trump is putting America first.

[Berkut]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Valmy]

sure you are. you're one of small group of former republicans (independents?) who migrated over to the democrat side. a few other posters here have done so as well. you and a few others don't like the direction the republicans are headed. but the majority of states chose that direction for lots of different reasons. so far, trump has been true to those reasons.

There are many reasons for many things. Trump has been true to things of some sort.

Or something.

Care to make some kind of sense? What reasons? And why does something some 'states' decide legitimize anything. Many states have made many bad decisions for many reasons throughout history. Just because they did does not mean that makes their reasoning sound or their decisions good. Things happening is a justification in themselves? Berkut is a minority and therefore not credible?

And and spare me the self pity about how 'posters' are doing things. Your inability to post anything that makes sense besides unfunny trolls is not the other posters fault.

at least half the country, probably far more than that, doesn't actually care about foreign policy. they care about America, because we're an exceptional country full of exceptional people, and trump is putting America first.

So foreign policy is bad for the country and should not be done? I don't understand.

I think Trump's policies do NOT put American first. They put short term misguided priorities first. So I disagree with your assertion. How is he putting America first? Shouldn't that involve doing good things for America? I don't think pulling out the TPP was putting America first. I don't think ham-handed and poorly thought out immigration bans by fiat are putting America first.

[LaCroix]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Valmy]

Thanks for proving my point.

Well I guess somebody found your post convincing.

[LaCroix]

What reasons? And why does something some 'states' decide legitimize anything. Many states have made many bad decisions for many reasons throughout history. Just because they did does not mean that makes their reasoning sound or their decisions good. Things happening is a justification in themselves? Berkut is a minority and therefore not credible?

ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan went for trade, maybe some coal mining, generally pro-industry, etc.

pretty much every other state went republican for the same reason as every other election. this election, it was probably because they didn't want a democrat in the white house.

yes, many states have made bad decisions for many reasons throughout history. lots of people would rather have a terrible republican president than any democrat president, because democrats are for a lot of things they don't like. lots of people voted republican for the SCOTUS nomination, etc. voting republican because you don't want a democrat in the white house is sound reasoning. voting republican because you want a conservative SCOTUS justice is sound reasoning. there are other reasons you can list. wanting to push a social conservative agenda, etc.

[Valmy]

ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan went for trade, maybe some coal mining, generally pro-industry, etc.

Right. And I disagree with their reasoning. They made a bad decision for bad reasons. But lots of people and states throughout history have done that.

pretty much every other state went republican for the same reason as every other election. this election, it was probably because they didn't want a democrat in the white house.

yes, many states have made bad decisions for many reasons throughout history. lots of people would rather have a terrible republican president than any democrat president, because democrats are for a lot of things they don't like. lots of people voted republican for the SCOTUS nomination, etc. voting republican because you don't want a democrat in the white house is sound reasoning. voting republican because you want a conservative SCOTUS justice is sound reasoning. there are other reasons you can list. wanting to push a social conservative agenda, etc.

Yes. I think I am aware of those things. And I think they made a mistake. I would never vote for some Communist over a perfectly normal Republican. Also nobody forced them to nominate Trump in the first place. They had tons of options and none of them were Democrats. They decided to put in there a deeply flawed incompetent just because he was a reality TV star who knew how to put on a show.

[grumbler]

sure you are. you're one of small group of former republicans (independents?) who migrated over to the democrat side. a few other posters here have done so as well. you and a few others don't like the direction the republicans are headed. but the majority of states chose that direction for lots of different reasons. so far, trump has been true to those reasons. 

He's got you there, Berkut.  Just as you know punctuation and he does not, he knows your political views and you do not.  See, Trump "has been true to those reasons" and if the press weren't lying, you'd know it.

[grumbler]

Thanks for proving my point.

Well I guess somebody found your post convincing.

Dude, he is a total troll. "they care about America, because we're an exceptional country full of exceptional people"?  That didn't strike you as a bit deliberately over the top, even for someone who has informed us he takes stupid pills?

[Valmy]

He has posted here awhile though. It wasn't like he was always like this.

I think he is on some kind of crusade to teach us a lesson or stop being so unfair to Trump people or something. He is just not very persuasive or articulate.

I think anyway. The lack of being articulate makes it hard to tell. He will post something I think is almost a good post and then he will go post stupid shit in the Super Bowl thread.

[Eddie Teach]

Also nobody forced them to nominate Trump in the first place. They had tons of options and none of them were Democrats. They decided to put in there a deeply flawed incompetent just because he was a reality TV star who knew how to put on a show.

I think the media was complicit in this. The barrage of stories about Trump and hardly anything about his opponents made him look like a "winner".

[LaCroix]

ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan went for trade, maybe some coal mining, generally pro-industry, etc.

Right. And I disagree with their reasoning. They made a bad decision for bad reasons. But lots of people and states throughout history have done that.

Yes. I think I am aware of those things. And I think they made a mistake. I would never vote for some Communist over a perfectly normal Republican. Also nobody forced them to nominate Trump in the first place. They had tons of options and none of them were Democrats. They decided to put in there a deeply flawed incompetent just because he was a reality TV star who knew how to put on a show.[/quote]

yes, you disagree with their reasoning. if you agreed with their reasoning, you wouldn't be posting that their reasoning is bad. it's bad because you're placing emphasis on different factors than they emphasize.

you would never have voted for a communist over a perfectly normal republican, but many, many people would disagree (in their actions voting democrat more than anything).

they all didn't nominate trump, but they were stuck with him, so they voted for him over hillary. trump got around 30% -- because he was willing to attack immigration, which is an issue a lot of republicans people care about, and other things that the republican establishment has tried to move away from

if america wants a president who will value the same things you value, it will vote for that president. last year, america tried different values for a change -- it didn't want the status quo, it wanted something different. so, it's getting something different.