If Trumps wins, who to blame?

[GMDino]

(09-17-2016, 03:14 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Please continue with your generalizations about white people and how they are to blame for the state that the country is in....

What I described exists.  And it is a group that votes...generally in one direction.  This year that direction will be Trump.


Can I interest you in a shoe that happens to be you size?

[McC]

How could Hillary not be to blame if she couldn't beat the worst candidate in the history of elections?

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2016, 03:39 PM)McC Wrote: How could Hillary not be to blame if she couldn't beat the worst candidate in the history of elections?

Because the left will not blame Hills for anything:

She handles government business on here personal server: Colin Powell is to blame

The election is rigged to ensure she gets the nomination: Russia is to blame

She calls over 11 million Americans despicable: Trump is to blame

[Sovereign Nation]

(09-17-2016, 03:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: What I described exists.  And it is a group that votes...generally in one direction.  This year that direction will be Trump.


Can I interest you in a shoe that happens to be you size?

I wear 9 1/2.

So if we are so deplorable does that mean that if Hillary wins she won't accept our tax money?  Funny how quickly we are accepted when it comes time to get paid.

What I find funny is that if Hillary wins, somehow people think the deplorables will somehow magically vanish.

How about this one.... if a black person protest the removal of black influence then he is an activist.... if a white person protest the removal fo white influence then he is an "angry white male" who is fearful and racist.

So again continue with your generalizations.... remember if I lump all blacks together I am generalizing and that is bad... when you lump all whites together that is now somehow moral.  

[GMDino]

(09-17-2016, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the left will not blame Hills for anything:

She handles government business on here personal server: Colin Powell is to blame

The election is rigged to ensure she gets the nomination: Russia is to blame

She calls over 11 million Americans despicable: Trump is to blame

Trump has called everyone who says anything bad about him a loser.

That's a lot more than 11 million people, but hey... Clinton's fault.

[CageTheBengal]

(09-17-2016, 03:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So called "smart" people swallow lies of more polished politicians just as easily.

It's really the fault of the media.  Most smart people, even, aren't educated or informed enough to make an intelligent evaluation of economic, tax and foreign policy - just because someone has a MD or PhD doesn't mean they ever picked up an economics book.  Social issues should not be at the forefront of a federal election, but it is because the vast majority of Americans are rather ignorant on the critical issues.

I'm not talking about understanding the depths of every critical issue as much as I'm talking about the things he says and the lack of validity and substance his supporters seem un-bothered by. Just about everything he says that comes across as naive or wrong he will either backtrack and try to clarify with a better answer and/or blame the media for twisting his words. It's a never ending loop his supporters eat up that deflects all blame from Trump and throws all the blame at the media and our so called PC society. Why else would anyone believe Trump is a great businessman instead of a spoiled rich boy who inherited his "success"? Why else would anyone stand behind a guy who says he knows more then the generals do? Would you believe a plumber if he said he could code software? Why else would anyone stand behind a guy who has said flat out despicable things without even batting an eye?

It's because there is always an excuse and no matter how lame, juvenile or baseless it is his supporters will believe it. It's Trump over anyone else. Anyone who can't see through Trump and his B.S. at this point or who are more worried about sticking it to the man and the political system at any cost I have to wonder about.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2016, 04:24 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I wear 9 1/2.

I think we have a shoe that fits...perhaps you can wear it?

(09-17-2016, 04:24 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: So if we are so deplorable does that mean that if Hillary wins she won't accept our tax money?  Funny how quickly we are accepted when it comes time to get paid.

Do they pay taxes in the first place?  Then yes.  As an American citizen their taxes will gladly be accepted and hopefully used in a manner that creates a better nation for all.  Not just the few.

(09-17-2016, 04:24 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: What I find funny is that if Hillary wins, somehow people think the deplorables will somehow magically vanish.

Oh and I don't think any group ever completely "goes away".  They just try to find new ways to get their views mainstreamed.

(09-17-2016, 04:24 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: How about this one.... if a black person protest the removal of black influence then he is an activist.... if a white person protest the removal fo white influence then he is an "angry white male" who is fearful and racist.

So again continue with your generalizations.... remember if I lump all blacks together I am generalizing and that is bad... when you lump all whites together that is now somehow moral.  

However I didn't lump "all whites" together.  I spoke about a specific group that is proven to exist and how they can influence other fringe groups who are looking for someone to say they are a victim.  You can re-read my original post if you like.

[Aquapod770]

(09-17-2016, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: In (several) other posts a particular poster has said that it is not the "Republican Party's fault that Trump got nominated...the people elected who they wanted.


In this thread that same poster says the Democrats "only ran" one person against Clinton

I'd suggest they have different standards for the different parties but I don't want to assume based solely on the posts they make and the words they use.

In this case the fault lies with years (decades) of angry white males thinking that giving rights to everyone and treating each color, race, sexuality and religion as equal is somehow "destroying the America they know" and that message spreading to many disenfranchised people who want to blame everyone else for their own problems.  The ones who say how horrible the government is while collecting their welfare checks.  The ones who collect their welfare checks and complain about the lazy n****** who don't want to work.  The ones who say the government is trying to take their guns so they have to stockpile them and then get angry and people who peacefully protest by not standing for 2-3 minutes at a game. 

The people who constantly promote an us vs them and then say President Obama "has divided this country like no president ever before".

The loud, uninformed, uneducated voters with no long range outlook only a rear view mirror that is cracked and distorted.

They will be to blame.

I just hope there are more people who think than that.

This reply makes me actually want to vote for Trump 

[McC]

(09-17-2016, 06:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think we have a shoe that fits...perhaps you can wear it?


Do they pay taxes in the first place?  Then yes.  As an American citizen their taxes will gladly be accepted and hopefully used in a manner that creates a better nation for all.  Not just the few.


Oh and I don't think any group ever completely "goes away".  They just try to find new ways to get their views mainstreamed.


However I didn't lump "all whites" together.  I spoke about a specific group that is proven to exist and how they can influence other fringe groups who are looking for someone to say they are a victim.  You can re-read my original post if you like.

She has no interest in making a better America for anyone.  She is only interested in making a richer HillBill.  Her history says so.  You'll deny that, of course.  But at least stop insulting everyone's intelligence by attempting to paint her as altruistic in any way.  Nothing in her past even suggests any such behavior.  If you swallow her pack of lies, you are truly a rube.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2016, 07:20 AM)McC Wrote: The has no interest in making a better America for anyone.  She is only interested in making a richer HillBill.  Her history says so.  You'll deny that, of course.  But at least stop insulting everyone's intelligence by attempting to paint her as altruistic in any way.  Nothing in her past even suggests any such behavior.  If you swallow her pack of lies, you are truly a rube.

No one gets rich being in office, it's the stuff after. Bill still gets a lot of attention and they could coast on that for their entire lives. She has seen the stress and hardships of the office and, quite frankly, still wants to do it. It would be far easier for them to ride things out the way they were, still raking in money for speaking fees and what not. I am not seeing the logic in your statement. Like it or not, Bill and Hillary have devoted their lives to civil service, so there is more evidence there for their altruism than anything on Donald's side of the balance.

[McC]

(09-18-2016, 07:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No one gets rich being in office, it's the stuff after. Bill still gets a lot of attention and they could coast on that for their entire lives. She has seen the stress and hardships of the office and, quite frankly, still wants to do it. It would be far easier for them to ride things out the way they were, still raking in money for speaking fees and what not. I am not seeing the logic in your statement. Like it or not, Bill and Hillary have devoted their lives to civil service, so there is more evidence there for their altruism than anything on Donald's side of the balance.

You say civil service, unholy pursuit of power.  Agree to disagree.  And, as far as civil service goes, she has been miserably bad at it.  It's all moot anyway.  She won't live though four years of service.

And when one seeks office to promote their own agenda, that pretty much removes the whole altruistic line of BS from the equation.  The only person Hillary has ever served is herself.   She's a politician.  That's what they all do. To think otherwise is just blind naivete.

I would also submit that her service will be to the big money behind her.  Seven hundred million is a pretty big IOU.

[McC]

(09-18-2016, 07:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No one gets rich being in office, it's the stuff after. Bill still gets a lot of attention and they could coast on that for their entire lives. She has seen the stress and hardships of the office and, quite frankly, still wants to do it. It would be far easier for them to ride things out the way they were, still raking in money for speaking fees and what not. I am not seeing the logic in your statement. Like it or not, Bill and Hillary have devoted their lives to civil service, so there is more evidence there for their altruism than anything on Donald's side of the balance.

Gotta come back to this.  Can't believe you're using the stock Dem. answer of "Trump is worse."  You know, the only defense the Dem's have against any criticism aimed at The Beast?

And seriously?  No one gets rich in office?  Did you just arrive on planet Earth?

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2016, 09:02 AM)McC Wrote: You say civil service, unholy pursuit of power.  Agree to disagree.  And, as far as civil service goes, she has been miserably bad at it.  It's all moot anyway.  She won't live though four years of service.

And when one seeks office to promote their own agenda, that pretty much removes the whole altruistic line of BS from the equation.  The only person Hillary has ever served is herself.   She's a politician.  That's what they all do. To think otherwise is just blind naivete.

I would also submit that her service will be to the big money behind her.  Seven hundred million is a pretty big IOU.

Bad at it or not, the Clintons have had a life of civil service. It is true that politicians go into it with an agenda, every one of them does. That agenda is usually what they think will be best for the country, though. You may not agree with it but that is the way it typically goes. They do some favors for people and corporations along the way that are typically ignoring the best interests of the people, but every single politician I have ever met has had an overall agenda regarding what they felt was the best for the people. Just what I have learned in my experience working in government and being an appointed official.

I can say that Trump is doing what he is doing because he thinks it is right for the country, even though I disagree with him on almost everything (at least based on his most recent positions). I disagree with Clinton on many things, with Johnson, with Stein, all of them. I don't fully agree with any of them but I can say with 100%certainty that they are doing it and they hold the positions they do because they believe it is what's best for the people.

(09-18-2016, 09:07 AM)McC Wrote: Gotta come back to this.  Can't believe you're using the stock Dem. answer of "Trump is worse."  You know, the only defense the Dem's have against any criticism aimed at The Beast?

And seriously?  No one gets rich in office?  Did you just arrive on planet Earth?

First, I'm not a Democrat. Second, you only attack one side, you say Clinton is not altruistic. Who are you voting for? If it is Trump, which IIRC it is, then of course I will point out the flaw in your logic when using the lack of altruism against Clinton when you side with Trump.

And no, they don't get rich in office. Most politicians already have money before getting there by inheriting or being in law or business. Then, when they leave office, that is when the dough starts flowing in by being on boards, doing speaking engagements, etc. Being a politician is more of an investment in future earnings.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

If he wins, the blame sits solely at the feet of the POS people that voted for him.

[GMDino]

(09-18-2016, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bad at it or not, the Clintons have had a life of civil service. It is true that politicians go into it with an agenda, every one of them does. That agenda is usually what they think will be best for the country, though. You may not agree with it but that is the way it typically goes. They do some favors for people and corporations along the way that are typically ignoring the best interests of the people, but every single politician I have ever met has had an overall agenda regarding what they felt was the best for the people. Just what I have learned in my experience working in government and being an appointed official.

I can say that Trump is doing what he is doing because he thinks it is right for the country, even though I disagree with him on almost everything (at least based on his most recent positions). I disagree with Clinton on many things, with Johnson, with Stein, all of them. I don't fully agree with any of them but I can say with 100%certainty that they are doing it and they hold the positions they do because they believe it is what's best for the people.


First, I'm not a Democrat. Second, you only attack one side, you say Clinton is not altruistic. Who are you voting for? If it is Trump, which IIRC it is, then of course I will point out the flaw in your logic when using the lack of altruism against Clinton when you side with Trump.

And no, they don't get rich in office. Most politicians already have money before getting there by inheriting or being in law or business. Then, when they leave office, that is when the dough starts flowing in by being on boards, doing speaking engagements, etc. Being a politician is more of an investment in future earnings.

The problem with all of that Matt is it goes against their emotional hatred of all things Clinton / Democrat / Liberal.  

Logic has no place when they can accuse Clinton of being old and wearing ugly coats and coughing too much.  

[Beaker]

(09-17-2016, 03:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So called "smart" people swallow lies of more polished politicians just as easily.

If hillary had swallowed, bill would not have needed monica.

[McC]

(09-18-2016, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bad at it or not, the Clintons have had a life of civil service. It is true that politicians go into it with an agenda, every one of them does. That agenda is usually what they think will be best for the country, though. You may not agree with it but that is the way it typically goes. They do some favors for people and corporations along the way that are typically ignoring the best interests of the people, but every single politician I have ever met has had an overall agenda regarding what they felt was the best for the people. Just what I have learned in my experience working in government and being an appointed official.

I can say that Trump is doing what he is doing because he thinks it is right for the country, even though I disagree with him on almost everything (at least based on his most recent positions). I disagree with Clinton on many things, with Johnson, with Stein, all of them. I don't fully agree with any of them but I can say with 100%certainty that they are doing it and they hold the positions they do because they believe it is what's best for the people.


First, I'm not a Democrat. Second, you only attack one side, you say Clinton is not altruistic. Who are you voting for? If it is Trump, which IIRC it is, then of course I will point out the flaw in your logic when using the lack of altruism against Clinton when you side with Trump.

And no, they don't get rich in office. Most politicians already have money before getting there by inheriting or being in law or business. Then, when they leave office, that is when the dough starts flowing in by being on boards, doing speaking engagements, etc. Being a politician is more of an investment in future earnings.

i just can't agree with that.  I will agree that there might be a scant few who are in it for the right reasons.  What happens to those few?  One of two things.  They actually get into the  biz, (and yes, it is a biz) and are repulsed by it and run like hell or they are swallowed up by it.

They have created a system where money and special interests rule, a system that removes/insulates them from any real public scrutiny or accountability.  They operate unencumbered by what is best for the country.

Get rich in office, get rich later, because you were in office, same thing.  It's not just the money.  It's just as much about the power.   Altruism is really a very small part of the equation.  If they cared about the country, would both sides spend so much time shooting down the other side's agenda? 

They do care about some things--blocking the other side, staying in office, living the high life, keeping all their bad shit well hidden, partying like it's 1999.

[Aquapod770]

(09-18-2016, 10:37 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: If he wins, the blame sits solely at the feet of the POS people that voted for him.

This also makes me want to vote for him 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-18-2016, 02:33 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: This also makes me want to vote for him 

I guess I'm missing something. I have no clue why that statement makes you want to vote for the guy.

[Aquapod770]

(09-18-2016, 03:05 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I guess I'm missing something. I have no clue why that statement makes you want to vote for the guy.

Generalizing that people who vote for him are pieces of S$^$. 

Hilldog is human garbage, but I'm not gonna say if she wins it's because all her supporters are human garbage.