The_Donald - politics = fatpeoplehate

[crashtech]

Indeed.



You can't be offended at me for being an asshole while being an asshole yourself. But it's cool, I don't think you're that bad. It's just objective reality that HRC was qualified and normal as a candidate for POTUS from that (most important) perspective. Her not being electable because of her personality flaws and made-up email controversies is a different, separate matter that ultimately cost her.

The record will show who said what and when. My intention is to offer tit for tat, but not to initiate.

I find it puzzling that you as a group seem to want personality, which includes ineffable qualities of leadership ability, left out of the equation. The right personality is most definitely a qualification for leadership positions, and leadership of the free world should obviously be no exception. Leadership is partially defined as the ability to inspire people to follow you, a critical trait that Clinton just didn't have.

 

[First]

The record will show who said what and when. My intention is to offer tit for tat, but not to initiate.

So the record shows I started it? I'm not sure "But he started it" is the best argument, but to each their own.

I find it puzzling that you as a group seem to want personality, which includes ineffable qualities of leadership ability, left out of the equation. The right personality is most definitely a qualification for leadership positions, and leadership of the free world should obviously be no exception. Leadership is partially defined as the ability to inspire people to follow you, a critical trait that Clinton just didn't have.

I'm of course not talking about her private personality or private leadership abilities, I thought it was apparent I was talking about how Clinton's personality comes off to people in public. How she interacts in private is of course important for a leader. But watching her campaign and watching her fail to connect with voters while on camera was quite cringe worthy. Combine that with madeup email controversies and you have the components for defeat.

 

[ivwshane]

The record will show who said what and when. My intention is to offer tit for tat, but not to initiate.

I find it puzzling that you as a group seem to want personality, which includes ineffable qualities of leadership ability, left out of the equation. The right personality is most definitely a qualification for leadership positions, and leadership of the free world should obviously be no exception. Leadership is partially defined as the ability to inspire people to follow you, a critical trait that Clinton just didn't have.

She didn't have that trait publicly but everything I've read said that she possessed that among the smaller groups she worked with, including people in the other party.

I've said it many times, Hillary was a horrible politician.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So the record shows I started it? I'm not sure "But he started it" is the best argument, but to each their own.



I'm of course not talking about her private personality or private leadership abilities, I thought it was apparent I was talking about how Clinton's personality comes off to people in public. How she interacts in private is of course important for a leader. But watching her campaign and watching her fail to connect with voters while on camera was quite cringe worthy. Combine that with madeup email controversies and you have the components for defeat.

I'd argue the point of the 'madeup email controversies' and the reasoning behind why she lost. She was impossibly, unequivocally unlikable. She appeared at every turn to be as 'typical' a politician as one can get, with all the corrupt baggage that comes along with that. In addition, she was very specifically involved in scandal for what, a good year running up to the election? Merits of the crap she was embroiled in are debatable, but she *was* surrounded in controversy regardless.

 

[First]

I'd argue the point of the 'madeup email controversies' and the reasoning behind why she lost. She was impossibly, unequivocally unlikable. She appeared at every turn to be as 'typical' a politician as one can get, with all the corrupt baggage that comes along with that. In addition, she was very specifically involved in scandal for what, a good year running up to the election? Merits of the crap she was embroiled in are debatable, but she *was* surrounded in controversy regardless.

Well the merits are all that matters in a serious debate, but in the silly political public debates we often have in this country, the email controversy was just ridiculously overblown. For proof of it's trumped up political nature, you need look no further than the fact that nothing will come of this email thing in Congress or the courts, and that's simply because 1) there was never anything there and 2) HRC isn't running right now.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well the merits are all that matters in a serious debate, but in the silly political public debates we often have in this country, the email controversy was just ridiculously overblown. For proof of it's trumped up political nature, you need look no further than the fact that nothing will come of this email thing in Congress or the courts, and that's simply because 1) there was never anything there and 2) HRC isn't running right now.

Eh.. as someone who was in the military and who handled classified info, back-channeling classified info (whether it had the red or yellow words on it to begin with or not) is wrong with capital W. Barring very specific one-off situations, people know when what they are talking about is classified. It's not a mystery. If you're doing something within the govt outside of the 'normal' systems/channels because the 'normal' systems/channels make things too hard, you're probably doing it illegally. Now having said that, yeah, a lot of people who did stupid stuff with classified info never got 'really' punished (much to the chagrin of the security officer) but that still doesn't make it not wrong, and not illegal by the letter of the law.

You can't say 'well she didn't get punished so it must not have been wrong', that's a slope coated in frozen grease.

 

[Victorian Gray]

She didn't have that trait publicly but everything I've read said that she possessed that among the smaller groups she worked with, including people in the other party.

I've said it many times, Hillary was a horrible politician.

No, she's a pretty good politician but she's a terrible campaigner.

 

[ivwshane]

No, she's a pretty good politician but she's a terrible campaigner.

I'm using the word "politician" in the pejorative. She's not good at selling herself.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm using the word "politician" in the pejorative. She's not good at selling herself.

That's campaigning.

 

[ivwshane]

That's campaigning.

Yes, we are saying the same thing.

 

[agent00f]

We don't even have to look there. There are plenty such posters and tactics right here. One of the most bigoted, racist, and insulting poster heavily leans left. Most of what he does is race bait, troll and insult people who don't agree with him. I rarely read his posts and made it a point to just scroll past, still some sneak in if quoted. The point I was making, is most media, and people here, act as if there are people like this on one side. That Trump won because of racists, only whites can be racists, only Trump supporters or Repubs are "deplorable". When that is far from the truth. Media rarely goes against the grain, such as with the alleged Rape in Maryland. Heard a peep on MSM? Not from the left, by far mostly ignored. Nobody here posted it. Attacking the victim? Thats ok, because of the circumstances. Wonder why that is? Not hard to imagine. Reporting it doesnt support their agenda, same as those here. A leftist talk show host who earlier tweeted a racist remark about Ivanka, just now tweeted an insult to an unborn child of the Trumps. And yet is too stupid to realize the difference between jeans and genes, or that genes are passed to male and female babies alike. This forum loves to report on every tweet that makes the Trumps look bad (they do make it easy sometimes because they post really dumb stuff) but not a peep about this tweet. Again, wonder why that is. You can bet if it went the other way, it would have been all over the news and these forums. But its not, because its apparently ok to hate against Trumps no matter what.

The article does take an interesting and unorthodox approach looking at things. I appreciate looking outside the box. If the article was the other way around, you can be assured that the OP would never have posted it. That is a fact. As I said, there are plenty of people who make truly disgusting remarks who are left and right leaning. Yet we usually only hear one way. Reading these forums for a few days will show plenty here do the same. Its not a one sided problem, no matter how much the attempts are made to make it look that way.

Great job hauling all that water for white nationalists who finally found that mexican rapist, always knew conservatives had it in them.

 

[agent00f]

Dems nominated Hillary, which means that at worst, Trump can only be the second-worst nominee in our history.

Given sanders votes 95% same as the democrats, what does that make him?