Why the left hates Trump so intensely

[agent00f]

Hmmmmmm

This was before all the votes were counted and it was obvious she generally performed as well as obama, not that the obvious ever matters to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Sonikku]

It was the mellennials that caused Clinton to lose.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/50172...llary-clinton-the-way-they-loved-barack-obama

Or Sanders for that matter.

 

[agent00f]

Or Sanders for that matter.

Too bad they don't vote like conservatives.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe just maybe some on the left caused others on the left to dislike Clinton and why those voters chose not to vote for her.

Or maybe the concern trolling army of Bernie bots "So cheated! Evil Hillary!" armed with Russian supplied info had some effect. Even we had more than just a couple of 'em. Where are they now?

 

[werepossum]

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?

Wait - so California spent two weeks wiping jelly off of actual legal in-person Clinton voters? Now I'm reeeaaally confused.

Who he?

lol +1

 

[agent00f]

Or maybe the concern trolling army of Bernie bots "So cheated! Evil Hillary!" armed with Russian supplied info had some effect. Even we had more than just a couple of 'em. Where are they now?

The data and logic have all been rehashed countless time. He's just rehashing it cus that's what pieces of buckshit do.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

BLM = Butthurt Liberal Minnions

 

[Jhhnn]

The data and logic have all been rehashed countless time. He's just rehashing it cus that's what pieces of buckshit do.

I do enjoy how every thread about Trump turns into a Hillary bashing fest from the usual suspects. They'll be claiming that their loathing for her made 'em crazy enough to vote for the Donald before it's over. It's all Hillary's fault!

 

[agent00f]

BLM = Butthurt Liberal Minnions

Always helpful when the dimwit army reliably accuses everyone else of what they're feeling/doing. Keep in mind you were incessantly whining about getting trolled, and the connection between that and butthurt.

I do enjoy how every thread about Trump turns into a Hillary bashing fest from the usual suspects. They'll be claiming that their loathing for her made 'em crazy enough to vote for the Donald before it's over. It's all Hillary's fault!

Imagine the epic butthurt had the centrist democrat won, even chucky would make a far better pres amiright.

 

[werepossum]

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?

I agree with most of that, but I differentiate the left and right further. The left I see divided into classical liberals who are still concerned with individual liberty (to a degree - in a nation of 300+ million, some individual liberty will inevitably be trampled) and progressives who are more concerned with identity politics. Liberals' proposals and laws may sometimes be stupid, but they are honestly trying to further individual liberty and promote equality and prosperity for all within reasonable constraints. (i.e. 300 million people can and will do a HUGE amount of environmental damage unless constrained.) Proggies on the other hand are maybe 70 - 80% aligned with liberals, but perfectly willing to trample individual liberty in favor of the cause of the day. It's the liberals who insist that everyone be heard; it's the proggies who insist that people who say things they don't like should be shouted down, kept from being heard. Liberals are very tolerant; proggies are very intolerant.

Conservatives I divide mostly into social conservatives and Southpark conservatives who are more libertarian. Social conservatives may be good people - most I know are (same with proggies actually) but can do a world of harm because they do not truly value individual liberty over traditional values. It's a wonderful thing to have strong JudeoChristian values; it's a terrible thing to try forcing them on other people in situations where it's not necessary. If government doesn't have a compelling need which can only be satisfied by banning some individual liberty, then government should not ban that personal liberty even if it's literally always been that way and 90% of Americans believe it always should be that way. The other conservatives, Southpark conservatives, tend to be socially liberal to libertarian, but conservative fiscally and with foreign policy. That's where I most identify - I like the Libertarian Party's stance on personal liberty, but not their stance on corporate liberty. Southpark conservatives are very tolerant; social conservatives are very intolerant. (Both social conservatives and proggies will insist that is not true, but both are only tolerant as long as one remains within their rigidly defined boundaries of acceptable behavior.)

As far as Trump, I consider him an absolutely horrible choice, even worse than Hillary - just not bad enough to make me vote for Hillary. Trump says a lot of things I like on principle, but first, many things I like on principle are either unworkable in practice or poorly implemented. And second, unless a candidate is unknown I pay no attention to what they say while campaigning - that's just what they believe (or are told) will get them into power. I pay attention to their character and goals before they began to run. Trump's character, from what I've seen over the years, is even worse than Hillary's. Maybe much worse. I pray the man does a good job, but based on his previous behavior I don't hold out much hope.

On the other hand, after reading "Dreams from my father" I was firmly convinced that Obama was a drugged out moronic leftie and he's been a pretty good President. So maybe Trump will surprise us. At the moment, the only concrete positive I see for Trump is that the Republican establishment hates him, and if they hate a Republican, I'll probably like him.

As far as what's causing the two parties' problems, I think it's because they have spread apart to the degree that both feel comfortable pandering to their idiots with the assumption that their smart people have little option but to go along.

 

[OrByte]

To get back on track of the topic

Trump is hated because of gaslighting. His twitter posts are all he needs to gaslight America.

it is happening daily.

 

[werepossum]

Rather simple to figure that appearing flawed to the lowest common denominator is a flaw, ie. look "uncool" to kids. Notice I also mentioned this, but nobody has ever mistaken you for a reader much less thinker.

Just as heads up that agreeing with realibrad on anything is a good sign you're embarrassingly wrong.

To the contrary, he (or she) is consistently one of the brightest, least partisan people on these boards. For instance, realibrad would never say something so totally moronic as "her flaw is that she looks flawed even though she really isn't."

 

[ivwshane]

To the contrary, he (or she) is consistently one of the brightest, least partisan people on these boards. For instance, realibrad would never say something so totally moronic as "her flaw is that she looks flawed even though she really isn't."

Yeah no ones said that, you dishonest piece of shit.

 

[agent00f]

To the contrary, he (or she) is consistently one of the brightest, least partisan people on these boards. For instance, realibrad would never say something so totally moronic as "her flaw is that she looks flawed even though she really isn't."

It doesn't do you any favors to consider someone who has real trouble figuring the opposite of idealistic/opportunistic choices (or anything more tricky than the simplest of word association for that matter) the brightest you know of; it just doesn't say that much about him as yourself.

The best part though was when he vehemently denied ever considering sanders idealistic in both the posts right before and after literally called him idealistic.

 

[Jhhnn]

As far as Trump, I consider him an absolutely horrible choice, even worse than Hillary - just not bad enough to make me vote for Hillary.

There could only be one winner- Clinton or Trump. You enabled Trump entirely by tearing Clinton down incessantly, as did a lot of people. The results are as much your doing as those who voted for Trump. Man up & own it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ahhhh the minions are argry. So easy for someone to be in control of their emotions.

 

[agent00f]

Ahhhh the minions are argry. So easy for someone to be in control of their emotions.

Maybe if you repeat that enough like the anti-clinton agitprop it might get some traction with those that method works well on.

Chucky, londo, brad, etc. The witch hunt's got some real winners.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahhhh the minions are argry. So easy for someone to be in control of their emotions.

It's not like Trump voters were in control of their own emotions. Quite the contrary. They swooned for Donald.

 

[chucky2]

No real coincidence your conservative pals here like Londo share the exact same trite bluster.

Don't think of it as bluster, think of it as us just laughing at the usual Leftards...

 

[agent00f]

Don't think of it as bluster, think of it as us just laughing at the usual Leftards...

Hey londo, what do you think of your "klan doesn't go far enough" friend here as compared to them centrist leftards?

Good thing all the conservatives are on the case of finding the Real racists.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah no ones said that, you dishonest piece of shit.

No, you said others believed she had flaws, but those flaws were superficial and you did not consider them flaws.

 

[ivwshane]

No, you said others believed she had flaws, but those flaws were superficial and you did not consider them flaws.

Nope you are just too fucking stupid to understand the simple point I was making. Go buckshit somewhere else.

 

[werepossum]

Not that simple. Men respect work and accomplishment and leadership. Clinton basically never did that. She just had to get on the right track to get to where she was. A man who had a similar work history as her wouldn't really get much traction either.

I'm no Hildabeast fan, but being elected Senator and made SecState are accomplishments. Personally I'd prefer to see how someone performs as a governor and builds a for-profit private business, but both Senate and SecState experience are useful experience for the Presidency. Both also allow a candidate to show character or lack thereof.

Maybe some of the left in those states hated Clinton more than they hated Trump

Mo debinitely. I know some true die hard yellow dog Democrats who voted for Trump simply because they so despise Hillary. Apparently those Russians have been running psyops for decades.

Yeah no ones said that, you dishonest piece of shit.

Actually both you and agent said pretty much that exact thing.

It doesn't do you any favors to consider someone who has real trouble figuring the opposite of idealistic/opportunistic choices (or anything more tricky than the simplest of word association for that matter) the brightest you know of; it just doesn't say that much about him as yourself.

If you could snap yourself out of binary mode, you'd understand that he is correct. Consider President Obama; he's absolutely idealistic. He got caught telling a crowd that his true intention was to abolish private health insurance, but he just didn't think he could do that in one step. He also wanted the "public option", Medicaid for all, as a step in that direction. And he recognized that not enough Democrats were willing to sacrifice their own careers to put all Americans on Medicaid. So he took the very most he could get, which was the federal bureaucracy seizing control of health insurance. That is opportunistic, but it is also idealistic. Very seldom do we get offered everything we want. You can choose to make the most of the opportunities you have - which may well require you to give up pushing for one thing in order to get another thing - or you can choose to be bitter, live a shit life, and insist that "the system" is to blame.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's not like Trump voters were in control of their own emotions. Quite the contrary. They swooned for Donald.

What does that have to do with angry liberals losing their temper in this thread?

 

[agent00f]

If you could snap yourself out of binary mode, you'd understand that he is correct. Consider President Obama; he's absolutely idealistic. He got caught telling a crowd that his true intention was to abolish private health insurance, but he just didn't think he could do that in one step. He also wanted the "public option", Medicaid for all, as a step in that direction. And he recognized that not enough Democrats were willing to sacrifice their own careers to put all Americans on Medicaid. So he took the very most he could get, which was the federal bureaucracy seizing control of health insurance. That is opportunistic, but it is also idealistic. Very seldom do we get offered everything we want. You can choose to make the most of the opportunities you have - which may well require you to give up pushing for one thing in order to get another thing - or you can choose to be bitter, live a shit life, and insist that "the system" is to blame.

No, it's completely opportunistic to lead progressives on that he's one of them, while behaving rather conservatively (eg. continuing bush policy no less). Or reliably flopping on gay marriage when the winds shifted. Christ, literally in the same post you rationalize why he has to be opportunistic.

Seems beyond obvious how Clinton's lack of political charisma as demonstrated in you & peers' opinion of her similar approach to governance is a major flaw .