Why the left hates Trump so intensely

[realibrad]

Clearly I see those flaws as I pointed them out, just because I don't care about those flaws doesn't mean they aren't flaws. It's a nuanced position that you seem incapable of understanding.

You do not think those flaws would influence her decisions? Her fear of political opponents using information against her is similar to Nixon. Nixon was spying on his political opponents because he was afraid of what they might say. We have not seen any indication that she would go as far, but she plays everything so close that we know little about her.

Her changing position on TPP shows that she is more likely to give in to popular movements than try and defend something she thinks is right. TPP was good enough to support but she threw it under the bus because it was politically expedient. Would she do the same as president?

Trump being these but worse is why I think H.C. was better, but I can say she had flaws.

Remember, you said this...

I listed her flaws, I just don't think they are flaws to me personally because I don't view a politician from a superficial viewpoint. That doesn't mean no one else does (most people do), so yes, they are flaws.

Saying they are superficial implies that when you look at her deeper they are not flaws, but those that do not look deep will see them as flaws. Don't pretend that you see them as flaws because you said "you" do not.

 

[MongGrel]

NM, would be off topic and why bother.

 

[realibrad]

There's a reason why you have a reputation for never understanding anything anyone ever explained. This situation can't be any more simple. ivwshane doesn't disagree that these supposed flaws are how folks like yourself rationalize their opinions, he just disagrees they're valid metrics for the job. Sort of like kids in school electing someone because they're "cool"/"uncool"; an adult might have differing ideas of what the kids base their decision upon. To be clear, this explanation is not meant for you given that would be a prime example of exercise in futility.



Seems clear that similar to trump, your opinion of people is entirely predicated on what nice/unkind things they might've said about you(r situation). I recalls yours in this case hinged on my opinions of the military's function as employer of last sort.

That is not what he said. He first said this.

I listed her flaws, I just don't think they are flaws to me personally because I don't view a politician from a superficial viewpoint. That doesn't mean no one else does (most people do), so yes, they are flaws.

He is saying others see flaws but only because they don't see things as deeply as he does. He is clearly saying he personally does not think those are actual flaws. A strange reply to my question of flaws he thinks she has. That's like me asking what your favorite color is and you telling me others like blue.

The reason I ask is because the left is starting do go down the dogmatic path the right did long ago. Pretending your flaws are not really flaws has led their side to some dumb shit. Thinking the Bible written by horrible humans during a horrible time, establishes morality is stupid, but to them it's fine because criticisms are superficial.

We are losing our counter balance to the Right.

 

[werepossum]

Point of order: California banned gravy.

lmao +1

I know at least 2 people that were very leftists. Pro-union. Pro-littleguy. In one case, basically a religious socialist. Both of them voted for Trump. I couldn't stomach voting for that man.

This x10,000,000

Same thing for evangelicals. I can certainly understand why the Rust Belt and small town America would embrace Trump out of desperation, but evangelicals? Trump is pretty much the anti-Christ from an evangelical standpoint. It's mystifying.

Haha, a perfect 'who, me?'

It's funny that you guys keep claiming that Clinton benefitted from millions of illegal votes but magically can't seem to find any evidence for it.

Don't worry, I'm sure you guys will uncover that massive voter fraud operation ANY DAY NOW! And if you don't? Well you can just keep pretending that you did like you do now. It keeps those scary and uncomfortable thoughts away.

Who, me? I'm absolutely sure that California had four million perfectly legal extra voters who are heavily motivated violently anti-Trump and yet unable to fill out a ballot.

Only one problem with your hypothesis. How do you take into account the rest of the world telling you how badly you screwed the U.S. pooch by electing the man?

The rest of the world can see what you can't. You think the anger from the left comes from simple partisanship bickering. Being disgruntled because their pick wasn't chosen. The left hates Trump for the same reason that the rest of the world does.

Just like global warming, maybe you should look at the data rather than just casually dismissing all of the evidence?

lol Ah, yes. The left literally cannot find an issue where "Americans are the idiots of the world" doesn't apply.

I HATE this argument. Along with the argument of "just give him a chance..."

Past is prologue my friend, all sorts of people (I'm not saying you specifically) were willing to CRUCIFY Hillary Clinton on all of these made up allegations of "pay for play" or lies or BHENGAZI or all the other made up sh!t from her PAST.

Yet people are so willing to give Trump a free pass on everything he has done in his past (ie pussy grabbing)

It is disgusting. Take off the team jerseys please!

lol Everything bad about my side is made up! Now stop being partisan!

 

[werepossum]

Clearly I see those flaws as I pointed them out, just because I don't care about those flaws doesn't mean they aren't flaws. It's a nuanced position that you seem incapable of understanding.

You specifically said that her flaws were only flaws if seen from a flawed perspective. That literally means she has no flaws at all.

I know words are hard, but come on.

 

[werepossum]

That is not what he said. He first said this.

I listed her flaws, I just don't think they are flaws to me personally because I don't view a politician from a superficial viewpoint. That doesn't mean no one else does (most people do), so yes, they are flaws.

He is saying others see flaws but only because they don't see things as deeply as he does. He is clearly saying he personally does not think those are actual flaws. A strange reply to my question of flaws he thinks she has. That's like me asking what your favorite color is and you telling me others like blue.

The reason I ask is because the left is starting do go down the dogmatic path the right did long ago. Pretending your flaws are not really flaws has led their side to some dumb shit. Thinking the Bible written by horrible humans during a horrible time, establishes morality is stupid, but to them it's fine because criticisms are superficial.

We are losing our counter balance to the Right.

We are also losing our counter balance to the Left, although obviously at the moment that isn't as important. Politics in general is becoming increasingly geared toward idiots, with the assumption that smarter people will have to go along with the party they dislike the least. That strategery failed the left this election, yet they are bound and determined to throw a four year tantrum rather than learn anything from their failure.

 

[fskimospy]

Who, me? I'm absolutely sure that California had four million perfectly legal extra voters who are heavily motivated violently anti-Trump and yet unable to fill out a ballot.

It's funny how hard you're trying to imply that there was something wrong with the vote in California despite having no evidence there was.

It's things like this that make people think you are a fundamentally dishonest person.

lol Ah, yes. The left literally cannot find an issue where "Americans are the idiots of the world" doesn't apply.

Polling pretty clearly shows that the world is of that opinion in this situation. Instead of projecting your own dishonesty on 'the left' maybe you should consider why the entire rest of the world holds American conservatism in such low regard. (I doubt you will do this)

 

[nageov3t]

I don't understand how voter fraud would even work.

I live in a state that doesn't check ID for voting, but even so you have to give the poll worker your name and sign in... if vast numbers of people were casting illegal ballots in other people's names, wouldn't you end up having at least thousands of people reporting that they showed up to vote only to discover that someone had already voted for them? or have poll workers reporting a huge influx of people trying to vote using names not on the ballot in that district?

 

[ivwshane]

I think you've buckshat this thread enough already.

That is not what he said. He first said this.

I listed her flaws, I just don't think they are flaws to me personally because I don't view a politician from a superficial viewpoint. That doesn't mean no one else does (most people do), so yes, they are flaws.

He is saying others see flaws but only because they don't see things as deeply as he does. He is clearly saying he personally does not think those are actual flaws. A strange reply to my question of flaws he thinks she has. That's like me asking what your favorite color is and you telling me others like blue.

The reason I ask is because the left is starting do go down the dogmatic path the right did long ago. Pretending your flaws are not really flaws has led their side to some dumb shit. Thinking the Bible written by horrible humans during a horrible time, establishes morality is stupid, but to them it's fine because criticisms are superficial.

We are losing our counter balance to the Right.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's up to you to set the record straight. I asked a question, you guys are spending quite a bit of time not answering it.

I see taj still hasn't either

Apparently I've misjudged you and your motives...and it will be interesting to see where you're coming from...so let's hear it. You volunteered to answer your own question...so answer it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't understand how voter fraud would even work.

I live in a state that doesn't check ID for voting, but even so you have to give the poll worker your name and sign in... if vast numbers of people were casting illegal ballots in other people's names, wouldn't you end up having at least thousands of people reporting that they showed up to vote only to discover that someone had already voted for them? or have poll workers reporting a huge influx of people trying to vote using names not on the ballot in that district?

It works like this.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/signs-potential-voter-fraud-just-popped-across-37-detroit

http://ijr.com/2016/11/722025-14-ca...-this-year-and-its-not-even-election-day-yet/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/01/stolen-forged-ballots-discovered-florida/

https://www.patmccrory.com/2016/11/...-ballots-discovered-challenged-bladen-county/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...inds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html

 

[realibrad]

We are also losing our counter balance to the Left, although obviously at the moment that isn't as important. Politics in general is becoming increasingly geared toward idiots, with the assumption that smarter people will have to go along with the party they dislike the least. That strategery failed the left this election, yet they are bound and determined to throw a four year tantrum rather than learn anything from their failure.

You are usually pretty direct with me. I would imagine you dont think Trump is the end of the world, but I would also bet you dont think he is a great pick either. What do you think is causing the two parties problems?

To me, a big problem for the left comes from a good idea that works as a general principle but has limits. So, equality is a great thing, provided its done logically. No everyone is equal in talent, so equality should be limited in terms of how rules are applied. The problem is that the left has started to ignore differences thinking that inequality in that context is actually not inherent, but created by society. In this I think many have misunderstood what equality was supposed to be. A black person is not as prone to sunburns as a Nordic White person. A biological advantage in terms of how their skin deals with UV rays. What this ends up doing is making the Left ignore reality to fit their desire to have true equality.

The Right tends up in much of the same place, in that they too ignore things for their desired outcome. If the Right were truly about individual freedoms, then the state would not be limiting gay marriage due to perceived morality. The state should not be limiting anyone that willfully wants to engage with others. The only time the state can limit people is when there is an unwilling party. The argument against abortion only works because the Left sees a fetus as a life, and thus unless it gives consent then its murder.

Both parties are far too willing to ignore their faults because they fear admitting weakness. What do you think?

 

[realibrad]

I think you've buckshat this thread enough already.

You really cant admit she has any flaws can you? The election is over, so there is nothing to protect, yet you still cant. Trump's flaws are easy for me to see, as he wears them as a badge of honor.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Apparently I've misjudged you and your motives...and it will be interesting to see where you're coming from...so let's hear it. You volunteered to answer your own question...so answer it.

Anytime you're ready.

 

[nageov3t]

It works like this.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/signs-potential-voter-fraud-just-popped-across-37-detroit

http://ijr.com/2016/11/722025-14-ca...-this-year-and-its-not-even-election-day-yet/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/01/stolen-forged-ballots-discovered-florida/

https://www.patmccrory.com/2016/11/...-ballots-discovered-challenged-bladen-county/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...inds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html

any instances where voter fraud was found to be willful and not just clerical mistakes where someone was convicted?

one of those articles is about North Carolina, but they performed a pretty extensive recount and nothing ever turned up. same for Michigan.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

any instances where voter fraud was found to be willful and not just clerical mistakes where someone was convicted?

one of those articles is about North Carolina, but they performed a pretty extensive recount and nothing ever turned up. same for Michigan.

I'm sure they were all "clerical mistakes".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Anytime you're ready.

You volunteered to answer your own question...so answer it. Or were you actually lying about your offer?

 

[IronWing]

Does anyone remember what the question was?

 

[Jhhnn]

It works like this.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/signs-potential-voter-fraud-just-popped-across-37-detroit

http://ijr.com/2016/11/722025-14-ca...-this-year-and-its-not-even-election-day-yet/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/01/stolen-forged-ballots-discovered-florida/

https://www.patmccrory.com/2016/11/...-ballots-discovered-challenged-bladen-county/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...inds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html

Yawn. Ever notice how we get this stuff every election since GWB? Big splashy headlines of speculation w/ no follow up down the road?

That's because it's mostly bullshit, just another attack on the legitimacy of democracy.

Trump's claim of millions of fraudulent votes is just Birtherism all over again.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure they were all "clerical mistakes".

Yes, almost 100% of the time they are found to be clerical mistakes and things like that. In person voter fraud basically never happens.

It is frankly amazing to me that conservatives are still clinging to the voter fraud myth after so much evidence has been compiled to disprove it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that more people wanted Clinton to win?

 

[brycejones]

Yes, almost 100% of the time they are found to be clerical mistakes and things like that. In person voter fraud basically never happens.

It is frankly amazing to me that conservatives are still clinging to the voter fraud myth after so much evidence has been compiled to disprove it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that more people wanted Clinton to win?

Who he?

 

[fskimospy]

Who he?

Haha, I do expect a 'who, me?' incoming, yes.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, almost 100% of the time they are found to be clerical mistakes and things like that. In person voter fraud basically never happens.

It is frankly amazing to me that conservatives are still clinging to the voter fraud myth after so much evidence has been compiled to disprove it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that more people wanted Clinton to win?

Yes, more people wanted Clinton to win. The problem is they were in the wrong states and our system only looks at the votes per state vs the country as a whole.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, almost 100% of the time they are found to be clerical mistakes and things like that. In person voter fraud basically never happens.

It is frankly amazing to me that conservatives are still clinging to the voter fraud myth after so much evidence has been compiled to disprove it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that more people wanted Clinton to win?

People like to cling to things that fit their political narrative. It allows them to explain why they lose some elections. So they make voting harder, which excludes people that already have a tough time voting. So when they start winning, it confirms their belief. The data shows that what ends up happening is that poor people that are fully legal vote less and that group usually votes Left. But the outcome in their minds proves the problem, and those poor people are just unlucky. Its more complex, but I feel that gets most of it.

The left has their ghosts too. Its why the wage gap issue is framed as sexism.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, almost 100% of the time they are found to be clerical mistakes and things like that. In person voter fraud basically never happens.

It is frankly amazing to me that conservatives are still clinging to the voter fraud myth after so much evidence has been compiled to disprove it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that more people wanted Clinton to win?

I was talking about election fraud in general...not in-person voter fraud specifically. Nice job of dishonest framing though....you never disappoint.