I was much happier on the Politics board in 2012

[swamp]

Jan 10, 2017 22:32:13 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

It gives a whole new meaning to "USA!USA! We're Number One!

[moon/Laura]

I would like to remind AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, weltschmerz, and dondub that calling people here "effing idiots" is NOT ALLOWED. I really don't know what the hell is wrong with some of you guys (members of the board in general) . Now that Trump is in the picture, everyone else thinks it's ok to act like Trump does - with a complete lack of respect for anyone. Keep it up, and some people will be finding their way out the door.

[Opti]

Jan 10, 2017 21:29:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 10, 2017 13:02:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Trump won with sheer demagoguery- exploiting troubles and fear, and telling people exactly what they wanted to hear. He won with a stunning display of recklessness with the "facts" and sheer disregard for the truth. He told so many bald faced lies they could not all be chronicled.

Whether or not he "delivers" is going to be dependent on his evasiveness and his skill with smoke and mirrors as much or more than anything else.  (qualities that he has shown considerable skill at, btw)  Mexico will NOT pay for a wall, we are NOT going to expel all Muslims, let alone all illegals, and we are NOT going to abrogate all of our trade treaties and the NATO Alliance.  Many of his most outrageous claims simply will NOT happen.

However he has a willing Congress, and in time a compliant court.  If he shows skill in executive governance (which is as big an if as one can postulate) he may be able to get quite a bit done- within the framework of what a President actually can do.  IF he can do this, and IF he can keep dancing away from his most egregious lies, he could very well be easily re-elected in 2020.

Those are two big "ifs" though, and do not even include the loaded die of foreign events.  We'll see.

I agree that that's why he won the nomination... but he won the General Election because the Democrats ran an unwinnable candidate. Literally the only eligible person on planet Earth that Donald could have beaten.

I don't believe that. People wanted change and the emails and false Hillary stories were churned out regularly. Like the Parkinson shit, pretending she had nurses standing by all sorts of crap. There were no equivalent industry churning out false Trump stories that I noticed.

Plus it seemed most people either gave Trump a pass or admired him for calling people names and acting like an ass. Hillary got crucified for the deplorable thing which was exaggerated to great effect by the RW blogosphere. I agree she made a critical error trying to point it out and definitely by trying assign numbers in anyway to the amount of scary Trump supporters. If Comey hadn't come out and fanned the email flames I think she would have won. But it would have been close.

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 11, 2017 18:42:57 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 10, 2017 21:29:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I agree that that's why he won the nomination... but he won the General Election because the Democrats ran an unwinnable candidate. Literally the only eligible person on planet Earth that Donald could have beaten.

I don't believe that. People wanted change and the emails and false Hillary stories were churned out regularly. Like the Parkinson shit, pretending she had nurses standing by all sorts of crap. There were no equivalent industry churning out false Trump stories that I noticed.

Plus it seemed most people either gave Trump a pass or admired him for calling people names and acting like an ass. Hillary got crucified for the deplorable thing which was exaggerated to great effect by the RW blogosphere. I agree she made a critical error trying to point it out and definitely by trying assign numbers in anyway to the amount of scary Trump supporters. If Comey hadn't come out and fanned the email flames I think she would have won. But it would have been close.

both denin and opt..good posts...hit nail right on the nail head and hammered it...agree with u both...now if we only had had a crystal ball and foreseen...[sigh...what might have been......so sad...so bad..]

[Deleted]

Jan 11, 2017 18:42:57 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 10, 2017 21:29:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I agree that that's why he won the nomination... but he won the General Election because the Democrats ran an unwinnable candidate. Literally the only eligible person on planet Earth that Donald could have beaten.

I don't believe that. People wanted change and the emails and false Hillary stories were churned out regularly. Like the Parkinson shit, pretending she had nurses standing by all sorts of crap. There were no equivalent industry churning out false Trump stories that I noticed.

Plus it seemed most people either gave Trump a pass or admired him for calling people names and acting like an ass. Hillary got crucified for the deplorable thing which was exaggerated to great effect by the RW blogosphere. I agree she made a critical error trying to point it out and definitely by trying assign numbers in anyway to the amount of scary Trump supporters. If Comey hadn't come out and fanned the email flames I think she would have won. But it would have been close.

I agree that there were SOME "false stories", but there were plenty of stories about her that weren't false (there was MUCH more "wrong" with her as a candidate than JUST the email). Those are what made me into an "anyone BUT Hillary" person. It wasn't the fake news... it was the news that I could personally verify. I'd be willing to bet that that's true of a LOT of "anyone but Hillary" people (especially the "Anyone BUT Hillary" Democrats).

I don't think Comey's last minute announcement had anything to do with her loss. By that time people were pretty well either for her or against her.

And I don't think people "gave Trump a pass" so much as they "didn't care because it's unrelated to the job"... Just like I gave a pass to Bill for what he did (with permission) with Monica... He was not elected to be "Husband of the Year"... just as Trump wasn't elected to be "Non-Kinky/Vanilla, Faithful, Monogamist of the Year" nor "Best Businessman of the Year with NO Bankruptcies".

To be honest, A Trump presidency scares the crap out of me... but not because I know we are doomed... but because there's no telling if he will be good or bad for us. He's simply unquantifiable as a politician. Hillary, on the other had would have assured our continued descent into oblivion that Obama kicked into overdrive (I won't say he started it... but he sure as hell didn't slow it down any... in fact he accelerated it!).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

That's OK. i'll come up with some other way to describe someone who regurgitates a story that we now know for certain was a fabrication. It's not that there's no supporting evidence- it's that it was actually made up.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Jan 11, 2017 22:18:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

That's OK. i'll come up with some other way to describe someone who regurgitates a story that we now know for certain was a fabrication. It's not that there's no supporting evidence- it's that it was actually made up.

Try looking in the mirror. 

[Deleted]

So funny. I mean, seriously funny stuff, 

[buystoys]

Jan 11, 2017 18:42:57 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 10, 2017 21:29:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I agree that that's why he won the nomination... but he won the General Election because the Democrats ran an unwinnable candidate. Literally the only eligible person on planet Earth that Donald could have beaten.

I don't believe that. People wanted change and the emails and false Hillary stories were churned out regularly. Like the Parkinson shit, pretending she had nurses standing by all sorts of crap. There were no equivalent industry churning out false Trump stories that I noticed.

Plus it seemed most people either gave Trump a pass or admired him for calling people names and acting like an ass. Hillary got crucified for the deplorable thing which was exaggerated to great effect by the RW blogosphere. I agree she made a critical error trying to point it out and definitely by trying assign numbers in anyway to the amount of scary Trump supporters. If Comey hadn't come out and fanned the email flames I think she would have won. But it would have been close.

The bolded portion of your statement I agree with.  I don't think all the story churning had as much to do with HRC's loss as HRC herself did.  For myself, anyway, I didn't believe her when she said she was going to bring jobs to the country.  I mean, she promised upstate NY she was going to bring jobs there when she ran for the Senate and they ended up losing jobs.  She promised to expand ACA when the program is already in a horrific disarray and costing people more for less care.  She said she was for income equality when she was paying her own female staff less than she paid the men.  (If you want a link to that one, you'll need to google it yourself.  I read it multiple times, but it may be from when she was a Senator.)  I think people really wanted to see our country move in a different direction and that a lot of people just felt helpless and hopeless with the current administration.

Personally, I don't give DJT a pass for being an ass.  However, I believe that most people vote on policies rather than personalities.  A lot of people here keep pointing out that DJT made a lot of campaign promises.  Guess what?  So did BHO.  And he didn't keep all of his promises either.  I don't know anyone who expects an elected official to keep ALL their promises. 

HRC's deplorables comment was the first time I've ever seen a Presidential candidate attack voters directly.  Even though she attempted to soften the statement and minimize it with the follow up empathy comments, it was pretty sad to hear that come out of the mouth of someone who has been in the political arena for 30+ years. 

I'm not excited about DJT being our next President, but I am hopeful that he can bring about some of the changes he campaigned on.  If he gets even 50% of his promises completed, that matches BHO's record for his second term.

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 11, 2017 22:18:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

That's OK. i'll come up with some other way to describe someone who regurgitates a story that we now know for certain was a fabrication. It's not that there's no supporting evidence- it's that it was actually made up.

So u say and the one mentioned  but as said before ...what u say doesn't mean it's so...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 12, 2017 11:18:31 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

Jan 11, 2017 22:18:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

That's OK. i'll come up with some other way to describe someone who regurgitates a story that we now know for certain was a fabrication. It's not that there's no supporting evidence- it's that it was actually made up.

So u say and the one mentioned  but as said before ...what u say doesn't mean it's so...

I don't say anything. The Director of National Intelligence says.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 11, 2017 22:29:49 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Jan 11, 2017 22:18:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

That's OK. i'll come up with some other way to describe someone who regurgitates a story that we now know for certain was a fabrication. It's not that there's no supporting evidence- it's that it was actually made up.

Try looking in the mirror. 

I did this. I look nothing like James Clapper.


theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/dni-report-2.jpg

[dondub]

The Clapper...always known for telling the truth:

www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

[Value Buy]

What is "restore the fourth Los Angeles"?
(I do not want to click on it, so I am hoping you will let me know)
TY

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 13, 2017 21:46:18 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Jan 12, 2017 10:43:32 GMT -5 buystoys said:

The bolded portion of your statement I agree with.  I don't think all the story churning had as much to do with HRC's loss as HRC herself did.  For myself, anyway, I didn't believe her when she said she was going to bring jobs to the country.  I mean, she promised upstate NY she was going to bring jobs there when she ran for the Senate and they ended up losing jobs.  She promised to expand ACA when the program is already in a horrific disarray and costing people more for less care.  She said she was for income equality when she was paying her own female staff less than she paid the men.  (If you want a link to that one, you'll need to google it yourself.  I read it multiple times, but it may be from when she was a Senator.)  I think people really wanted to see our country move in a different direction and that a lot of people just felt helpless and hopeless with the current administration.

Personally, I don't give DJT a pass for being an ass.  However, I believe that most people vote on policies rather than personalities.  A lot of people here keep pointing out that DJT made a lot of campaign promises.  Guess what?  So did BHO.  And he didn't keep all of his promises either.  I don't know anyone who expects an elected official to keep ALL their promises. 

HRC's deplorables comment was the first time I've ever seen a Presidential candidate attack voters directly.  Even though she attempted to soften the statement and minimize it with the follow up empathy comments, it was pretty sad to hear that come out of the mouth of someone who has been in the political arena for 30+ years. 

I'm not excited about DJT being our next President, but I am hopeful that he can bring about some of the changes he campaigned on.  If he gets even 50% of his promises completed, that matches BHO's record for his second term.

Good post.  I think in this election people on both sides had to put personalities aside and look at the policies and which candidate more closely matched their ideals.  That's what I did anyway.  And realistically when you get right down to it, Trump's policies are pretty close to my ideals.  There are a few things I disagree with, but overall much more aligned with him than Hillary.

I'm not naïve enough to think he will be the one that will be the first President to keep all his campaign promises.  People made such a to-do about his "putting Hillary in jail" comment during the third debate (?)...did people really expect him to do that?  I find that hard to believe.  It was a good line, but I took that to mean she's unethical and therefore not a good candidate.  She's not going to jail anyway, even if Trump or the AG would attempt it.

So u know he's a sleeze yet your comfortable with that  type being the leader of our country....the wall at 25 Billion is a good deal right, plus the cost of folks to mind it and cost to hire more agents to round up and deport more folks then Obama did.... or is those the ones u don't expect him to fulfill and your ok with....and his dissing  his soon to be own security services and publicly believe Putin and the Russians over our own folks..your ok with that too...and on and on we go....

[buystoys]

Jan 13, 2017 23:52:59 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

Jan 13, 2017 21:46:18 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Good post.  I think in this election people on both sides had to put personalities aside and look at the policies and which candidate more closely matched their ideals.  That's what I did anyway.  And realistically when you get right down to it, Trump's policies are pretty close to my ideals.  There are a few things I disagree with, but overall much more aligned with him than Hillary.

I'm not naïve enough to think he will be the one that will be the first President to keep all his campaign promises.  People made such a to-do about his "putting Hillary in jail" comment during the third debate (?)...did people really expect him to do that?  I find that hard to believe.  It was a good line, but I took that to mean she's unethical and therefore not a good candidate.  She's not going to jail anyway, even if Trump or the AG would attempt it.

So u know he's a sleeze yet your comfortable with that  type being the leader of our country....the wall at 25 Billion is a good deal right, plus the cost of folks to mind it and cost to hire more agents to round up and deport more folks then Obama did.... or is those the ones u don't expect him to fulfill and your ok with....and his dissing  his soon to be own security services and publicly believe Putin and the Russians over our own folks..your ok with that too...and on and on we go....

So you believe people should vote for personality rather than for policy?  I'm not quite certain based on your response to Ratchets, but your first sentence leads me to believe that is what you prefer.

[zibazinski]

If we went on personality neither would get elected dog catcher.

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 14, 2017 11:00:26 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Jan 13, 2017 23:52:59 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

So u know he's a sleeze yet your comfortable with that  type being the leader of our country....the wall at 25 Billion is a good deal right, plus the cost of folks to mind it and cost to hire more agents to round up and deport more folks then Obama did.... or is those the ones u don't expect him to fulfill and your ok with....and his dissing  his soon to be own security services and publicly believe Putin and the Russians over our own folks..your ok with that too...and on and on we go....

So you believe people should vote for personality rather than for policy?  I'm not quite certain based on your response to Ratchets, but your first sentence leads me to believe that is what you prefer.

buy...IMHO the man did not spend much time on policy beyond...." get rid of Affordable Care..replace with ??..."trust me...Make America Great Again"... a 8/25 billion doller wall on the southern border.., removing thousands of illegals, saying will bring back thousands of jobs and saying his opponent should be incarcerated..egging his mobs to "lock her up, lock her up" To much up in the air for me plus it's more then personality..his history and verified...even by his own mouth..his actions..reaction to any and all criticisms of himself...and if he thinks hes seen the worse and most indepth so far..just wait till he is in that chair as POTUS...

His lying, his problem with speaking the truth..the accusations of..rape of a 12 year old hooker..even ladys of the night have rights and supposedly 4 times..his grouping..own words] rape of ex wife..this crap in Russia and on and on....

and Hillery..so u don't like her..saying she didn't accomplish what she did?..a worker for kids..first lady..Senator..Sec of State..Email mistake enough to disqualify her?

Whatever..it is what it is..this man who will be your new President has to many flaws for me...hopefully I am all wet in my feelings here.;.hpefully Wrong, wrong, wrong..me bad...hopefully you are all right, right, right..yea for "buystoys"..really pray for that.......problem is, I think I am correct in my assessment of him and u are wrong on yours...as said..that is to bad, not happy with that assumption at all.;

[buystoys]

Jan 14, 2017 11:32:09 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

Jan 14, 2017 11:00:26 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So you believe people should vote for personality rather than for policy?  I'm not quite certain based on your response to Ratchets, but your first sentence leads me to believe that is what you prefer.

buy...IMHO the man did not spend much time on policy beyond...." get rid of Affordable Care..replace with ??..."trust me...Make America Great Again"... a 8/25 billion doller wall on the southern border.., removing thousands of illegals, saying will bring back thousands of jobs and saying his opponent should be incarcerated..egging his mobs to "lock her up, lock her up" To much up in the air for me plus it's more then personality..his history and verified...even by his own mouth..his actions..reaction to any and all criticisms of himself...and if he thinks hes seen the worse and most indepth so far..just wait till he is in that chair as POTUS...the accusations of..rape of a 12 year old hooker..even ladys of the night have rights and supposedly 4 times..his grouping..own words] rape of ex wife..this crap in Russia and on and on....and Hillery..so u don't like her..saying she didn't accomplish what she did..a worker for kids..first lady..senator..sec of State..Email mistake enough to disqualify her? Whatever..it is what it is..this man who will be your new President has to many flaws for me...hopefully I am all wet in my feelings here.;.hpefully Wrong, wrong, wrong..me bad...hopefully you are all right, right, right..yea for "buystoys"..really pray for that.......

Dezi, I never brought up her e-mails.  I stated exactly what her actions were as my Senator compared to the campaign promises she made.  Sorry if that doesn't fit into your success story profile, but those are the facts as I see them. 

Again, much of your post is about personality flaws.  I said above that I don't give him a pass for being an ass.  I couldn't vote for him because he's an ass.  Which is why I'm pushing on this question of personality vs. policy.  I admit that his personality impacted how I voted.  I'm not comfortable with that.  Admittedly, I would never have voted for HRC as I didn't believe she could keep any of her campaign promises that were important to me.  She didn't keep them as Senator so there's no reason to believe she could keep them in another office.    That's not to say she had NO accomplishments.  I'm saying that the policies important to me were weaknesses for her.

If DJT is able to fulfill even 50% of his campaign promises, then he's about par for the course when compared to the last several presidents we've had.  That's all I'm hoping for. 

So I ask again, do you think people should vote based on personality rather than policy?  It is a serious question and I still don't know your thoughts.

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 14, 2017 11:42:48 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Jan 14, 2017 11:32:09 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

buy...IMHO the man did not spend much time on policy beyond...." get rid of Affordable Care..replace with ??..."trust me...Make America Great Again"... a 8/25 billion doller wall on the southern border.., removing thousands of illegals, saying will bring back thousands of jobs and saying his opponent should be incarcerated..egging his mobs to "lock her up, lock her up" To much up in the air for me plus it's more then personality..his history and verified...even by his own mouth..his actions..reaction to any and all criticisms of himself...and if he thinks hes seen the worse and most indepth so far..just wait till he is in that chair as POTUS...the accusations of..rape of a 12 year old hooker..even ladys of the night have rights and supposedly 4 times..his grouping..own words] rape of ex wife..this crap in Russia and on and on....and Hillery..so u don't like her..saying she didn't accomplish what she did..a worker for kids..first lady..senator..sec of State..Email mistake enough to disqualify her? Whatever..it is what it is..this man who will be your new President has to many flaws for me...hopefully I am all wet in my feelings here.;.hpefully Wrong, wrong, wrong..me bad...hopefully you are all right, right, right..yea for "buystoys"..really pray for that.......

Dezi, I never brought up her e-mails.  I stated exactly what her actions were as my Senator compared to the campaign promises she made.  Sorry if that doesn't fit into your success story profile, but those are the facts as I see them. 

Again, much of your post is about personality flaws.  I said above that I don't give him a pass for being an ass.  I couldn't vote for him because he's an ass.  Which is why I'm pushing on this question of personality vs. policy.  I admit that his personality impacted how I voted.  I'm not comfortable with that.  Admittedly, I would never have voted for HRC as I didn't believe she could keep any of her campaign promises that were important to me.  She didn't keep them as Senator so there's no reason to believe she could keep them in another office.    That's not to say she had NO accomplishments.  I'm saying that the policies important to me were weaknesses for her.

If DJT is able to fulfill even 50% of his campaign promises, then he's about par for the course when compared to the last several presidents we've had.  That's all I'm hoping for. 

So I ask again, do you think people should vote based on personality rather than policy?  It is a serious question and I still don't know your thoughts.

Well u did answer your own question and what I brought up...personalitys is a important aspect of how logical clear thinking folks decide who to give support and vote to.

On the Donald..u couldn't vote for him because he is in your mind, [mine too] a ass...am sure his noted flaws contributed to that...and yes his personality  did enter into how u made your choice...and I disagree with your feeling you are uncomfortable with personality entering into your choice..I think it is a reason to do or not do..From my standpoint I call his negative personality as his being a sleeze, enough of one that I don't want him as my President besides not buying into his "Trust Me..Make America..yadda, yadda.."

I don't believe in third party candidates..to me a wasted vote..hey thats me..so in regard to Hillery..I was fine with her..am a realist on life..some flaws and warts are acceptable to me if overall package is good. In your case toward her..your business..only thing I could say is her not bringing jobs to upper New York State..I am guessing she tried..the area I know,

[am a native Yankee, Connecticut..have traveled northern New York area..summer, fall ..never ever spring or winter, especially winter...]

area kind of isolated...not low income area for workers...possible unable to convince companies to relocate when other parts of country..forgetting foreign..better deals...just surmising.

[tallguy]

So I ask again, do you think people should vote based on personality rather than policy?

If you will allow me to drop an answer in here....

No, I don't believe that personality should be a primary reason to vote for someone.  A lot of people could be good presidents with lesser personal skills, and a likable personality does not mean one can be a good president.  There are however some personality traits that are sufficient reasons to vote against somebody.  For example, being the biggest and most blatant liar we have had on the American political scene in our lifetimes should be a disqualifier.  Being quite possibly the most fundamentally dishonest person in the country should be a disqualifier.  Having no idea how government or governing works, and no apparent inclination to try to learn, should be a disqualifier.  For far too many voters, that ignorance and disregard was apparently a badge of honor.  Unbelievable.   

They voted for a man who basically said nothing of any real substance.  Whose positions sometimes changed from hour-to-hour, much less week-to-week.  Whose appeal was almost entirely to their base emotions rather than to reason, and who has already changed several of the "promises" made to the voters even before taking office.  Was there a great alternative?  No, but there was a better one.  Hillary was a flawed candidate, to be sure, but she would have at least taken the job seriously and worked for the American people.  Trump may care about the job for a while, but the people will never be a priority for him.  He is the ultimate narcissist, and the ultimate user.  It is our time, apparently, to be used.       

[buystoys]

Thank you dezailoooooo and tallguy for your responses.

I will disagree that a third party vote is a wasted vote.  We are too polarized with only two major parties governing us.  We need that "tie breaker" position badly in order to get things done from what I am seeing.  My hope was that this would be the year that the Libertarian Party would get the percentage needed to have the funding that could push them into a stronger position in our government.  Unfortunately, that didn't happen so we are still at a standstill in Congress and that doesn't help any of us.

I have come to the belief that DJT has a lot more at stake here than some want to credit.  His whole brand depends on his performance as POTUS.  He has a VERY personal reason to be successful in the position.  Historically he's been a participant in the Democratic Party and I find him much more centrist than right on a number of issues.  Now, I don't have a crystal ball to see how everything will play out, but I do believe he is more willing to compromise in order to move policy forward than most of the other Republican candidates would have been.  It gives me hope that he will be able to address issues that concern me.  Still not a fan of his personality, but if he performs, I can be a fan of his actions.

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 14, 2017 12:13:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

So I ask again, do you think people should vote based on personality rather than policy?

If you will allow me to drop an answer in here....

No, I don't believe that personality should be a primary reason to vote for someone.  A lot of people could be good presidents with lesser personal skills, and a likable personality does not mean one can be a good president.  There are however some personality traits that are sufficient reasons to vote against somebody.  For example, being the biggest and most blatant liar we have had on the American political scene in our lifetimes should be a disqualifier.  Being quite possibly the most fundamentally dishonest person in the country should be a disqualifier.  Having no idea how government or governing works, and no apparent inclination to try to learn, should be a disqualifier.  For far too many voters, that ignorance and disregard was apparently a badge of honor.  Unbelievable.   

They voted for a man who basically said nothing of any real substance.  Whose positions sometimes changed from hour-to-hour, much less week-to-week.  Whose appeal was almost entirely to their base emotions rather than to reason, and who has already changed several of the "promises" made to the voters even before taking office.  Was there a great alternative?  No, but there was a better one.  Hillary was a flawed candidate, to be sure, but she would have at least taken the job seriously and worked for the American people.  Trump may care about the job for a while, but the people will never be a priority for him.  He is the ultimate narcissist, and the ultimate user.  It is our time, apparently, to be used.       

What can I ad?  not anything...so well said..

.as I just heard on TV..CNN is on in background...Obama said.."he feels American Democracy moves the ball forward.."

kinda gives us hope...a hope a hope...

[tallguy]

Jan 14, 2017 12:28:34 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Thank you dezailoooooo and tallguy for your responses.

I will disagree that a third party vote is a wasted vote.  We are too polarized with only two major parties governing us.  We need that "tie breaker" position badly in order to get things done from what I am seeing.  My hope was that this would be the year that the Libertarian Party would get the percentage needed to have the funding that could push them into a stronger position in our government.  Unfortunately, that didn't happen so we are still at a standstill in Congress and that doesn't help any of us.

I have come to the belief that DJT has a lot more at stake here than some want to credit.  His whole brand depends on his performance as POTUS.  He has a VERY personal reason to be successful in the position.  Historically he's been a participant in the Democratic Party and I find him much more centrist than right on a number of issues.  Now, I don't have a crystal ball to see how everything will play out, but I do believe he is more willing to compromise in order to move policy forward than most of the other Republican candidates would have been.  It gives me hope that he will be able to address issues that concern me.  Still not a fan of his personality, but if he performs, I can be a fan of his actions.

That is a very big assumption, and one I am hoping for as well.  Considering how much he pandered to the further-right and the angry, zero-information-voters though, I see little reason to be optimistic.

[dezailoooooo]

Jan 14, 2017 12:28:34 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Thank you dezailoooooo and tallguy for your responses.

I will disagree that a third party vote is a wasted vote.  We are too polarized with only two major parties governing us.  We need that "tie breaker" position badly in order to get things done from what I am seeing.  My hope was that this would be the year that the Libertarian Party would get the percentage needed to have the funding that could push them into a stronger position in our government.  Unfortunately, that didn't happen so we are still at a standstill in Congress and that doesn't help any of us.

I have come to the belief that DJT has a lot more at stake here than some want to credit.  His whole brand depends on his performance as POTUS.  He has a VERY personal reason to be successful in the position.  Historically he's been a participant in the Democratic Party and I find him much more centrist than right on a number of issues.  Now, I don't have a crystal ball to see how everything will play out, but I do believe he is more willing to compromise in order to move policy forward than most of the other Republican candidates would have been.  It gives me hope that he will be able to address issues that concern me.  Still not a fan of his personality, but if he performs, I can be a fan of his actions.

Can't disagree here and as far as third party candidates..understand your thoughts....and in a way makes sense but probably because of experience age , like with Bernie...a bit to out of touch and reality for me...but it is a minor problem

[buystoys]

Jan 14, 2017 12:36:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 14, 2017 12:28:34 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Thank you dezailoooooo and tallguy for your responses.

I will disagree that a third party vote is a wasted vote.  We are too polarized with only two major parties governing us.  We need that "tie breaker" position badly in order to get things done from what I am seeing.  My hope was that this would be the year that the Libertarian Party would get the percentage needed to have the funding that could push them into a stronger position in our government.  Unfortunately, that didn't happen so we are still at a standstill in Congress and that doesn't help any of us.

I have come to the belief that DJT has a lot more at stake here than some want to credit.  His whole brand depends on his performance as POTUS.  He has a VERY personal reason to be successful in the position.  Historically he's been a participant in the Democratic Party and I find him much more centrist than right on a number of issues.  Now, I don't have a crystal ball to see how everything will play out, but I do believe he is more willing to compromise in order to move policy forward than most of the other Republican candidates would have been.  It gives me hope that he will be able to address issues that concern me.  Still not a fan of his personality, but if he performs, I can be a fan of his actions.

That is a very big assumption, and one I am hoping for as well.  Considering how much he pandered to the further-right and the angry, zero-information-voters though, I see little reason to be optimistic.

See, I like the first portion of your response.  I have an issue with the bolded portion though.  My husband and the others I know voted for DJT are not zero information voters.  They voted based on policies DJT supported that they felt were important.  I react poorly when I see statements like that.  Writing off a group of people just because they think differently than you do or look different or believe differently is not an action I can support and I see many people (here and real life) doing so.  That amounts to bigotry as I understand it.

[buystoys]

Jan 14, 2017 12:38:37 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

Jan 14, 2017 12:28:34 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Thank you dezailoooooo and tallguy for your responses.

I will disagree that a third party vote is a wasted vote.  We are too polarized with only two major parties governing us.  We need that "tie breaker" position badly in order to get things done from what I am seeing.  My hope was that this would be the year that the Libertarian Party would get the percentage needed to have the funding that could push them into a stronger position in our government.  Unfortunately, that didn't happen so we are still at a standstill in Congress and that doesn't help any of us.

I have come to the belief that DJT has a lot more at stake here than some want to credit.  His whole brand depends on his performance as POTUS.  He has a VERY personal reason to be successful in the position.  Historically he's been a participant in the Democratic Party and I find him much more centrist than right on a number of issues.  Now, I don't have a crystal ball to see how everything will play out, but I do believe he is more willing to compromise in order to move policy forward than most of the other Republican candidates would have been.  It gives me hope that he will be able to address issues that concern me.  Still not a fan of his personality, but if he performs, I can be a fan of his actions.

Can't disagree here and as far as third party candidates..understand your thoughts....and in a way makes sense but probably because of experience age , like with Bernie...a bit to out of touch and reality for me...but it is a minor problem

I like Sanders.  I used to watch him every time he was on Bill O'Reilly because I knew that the two would have an interesting discussion on the topic at hand and even if I didn't agree with Bernie's position, I could respect his intention.  Many of his policies would be difficult for me to get behind, but I respect his efforts.

[billisonboard]

Jan 14, 2017 13:33:29 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Jan 14, 2017 12:36:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That is a very big assumption, and one I am hoping for as well.  Considering how much he pandered to the further-right and the angry, zero-information-voters though, I see little reason to be optimistic.

See, I like the first portion of your response.  I have an issue with the bolded portion though.  My husband and the others I know voted for DJT are not zero information voters.  They voted based on policies DJT supported that they felt were important.  I react poorly when I see statements like that.  Writing off a group of people just because they think differently than you do or look different or believe differently is not an action I can support and I see many people (here and real life) doing so.  That amounts to bigotry as I understand it.

FWIW, when I read tallguy 's post, I don't see a claim that every single voter who voted for Trump is a zero information voter. I don't see where it says that any zero information voter voted for Trump. It says he pandered to them. Would you disagree and say that he didn't do that at times?

[tallguy]

Jan 14, 2017 13:33:29 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Jan 14, 2017 12:36:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That is a very big assumption, and one I am hoping for as well.  Considering how much he pandered to the further-right and the angry, zero-information-voters though, I see little reason to be optimistic.

See, I like the first portion of your response.  I have an issue with the bolded portion though.  My husband and the others I know voted for DJT are not zero information voters.  They voted based on policies DJT supported that they felt were important.  I react poorly when I see statements like that.  Writing off a group of people just because they think differently than you do or look different or believe differently is not an action I can support and I see many people (here and real life) doing so.  That amounts to bigotry as I understand it.

Be careful not to mis-read.  I am not saying that all of Trump's voters are as described there.  I have said all along that there were reasons not to vote for Hillary.  Some voted for Trump out of a sincere belief that he would be better, or that they hoped he would actually follow through on certain policies and promises.  But any view of a Trump rally will indicate that a lot of his supporters could not find a rational thought with a book of clues and a flashlight.  He chummed the waters and people bit. 

[buystoys]

Jan 14, 2017 13:46:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 14, 2017 13:33:29 GMT -5 buystoys said:

See, I like the first portion of your response.  I have an issue with the bolded portion though.  My husband and the others I know voted for DJT are not zero information voters.  They voted based on policies DJT supported that they felt were important.  I react poorly when I see statements like that.  Writing off a group of people just because they think differently than you do or look different or believe differently is not an action I can support and I see many people (here and real life) doing so.  That amounts to bigotry as I understand it.

FWIW, when I read tallguy 's post, I don't see a claim that every single voter who voted for Trump is a zero information voter. I don't see where it says that any zero information voter voted for Trump. It says he pandered to them. Would you disagree and say that he didn't do that at times?

I will agree that DJT (as all politicians do) pandered to voters.  I find the continued reference to zero information voters distasteful and bigoted.  If tallguy chooses to state that specific people he knows voted for DJT with zero information, I would accept that as a straight statement.  If he wants to say DJT pandered to angry voters, I could agree as many people said they voted for him due to anger with our current administration.  The zero information comment, though, is just a phrase to disparage people who think differently from what I've seen here and in real life.  Not attractive.