Trump Part VIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well said.

Berniebro was not a "creation", it was a label that fit quite rightly on a large swath of Bernie supporters.
The actual most cringe inducing "creation" was the phrase "lesser of two evils" to describe Clinton and Trump. For the simple fact that there isn't one shred of reality in that statement.
But Berniebro was quite apropos. The majority of Bernie supporters may not fit that label, but many did.



given that we had an excellent example of a Bernie Bro -- complete with misogyny and hipster racism -- in here for months, it's surprising to me that there's surprise at the use of the term. we know it's a specific, defined thing that applies to a segment of Sanders supporters. FYM's Bernie Bro presented himself much, much differently than the other Sanders supporters, and no one lumped everyone together, so i'm not sure why we're pretending that was done.

the actual effect of such trolling is certainly debatable, and i'm inclined to think that the amount of said Bros is overstated, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist or was an inaccurate term or that lots of Dank Memes weren't Stashed.
 
Bye filibuster.

Watch out for some major crocodile tears in 2021 from the Republicans after Trump takes them all down with his sinking ship.
 
Well said.

Berniebro was not a "creation", it was a label that fit quite rightly on a certain subset of Bernie supporters.
The actual most cringe inducing "creation" was the phrase "lesser of two evils" to describe Clinton and Trump. For the simple fact that there isn't one shred of reality in that statement.
But Berniebro was quite apropos. The majority of Bernie supporters may not fit that label, but many did.

maybe it did not describe the reality you were feeling but a heck of a lot of people were completely turned off by both candidates. Hence the phrase 'lesser of 2 evils'.

I'm surprised by how much of this forum misrepresents opinion as fact. I have lots of opinions but I do not pretend they are all 100% objectively true. Others can disagree all they want, as long as its an honest, respectful dialogue then its all good.

not trying to pin this on you womanfish, I am talking more broadly about my perceptions of this forum in general, as a relative newcomer here.

Free Your Mind seems to be an ironic name for this particular thread, to be honest. Might just as well be called the Star Chamber.
 
maybe it did not describe the reality you were feeling but a heck of a lot of people were completely turned off by both candidates. Hence the phrase 'lesser of 2 evils'.

I'm surprised by how much of this forum misrepresents opinion as fact. I have lots of opinions but I do not pretend they are all 100% objectively true. Others can disagree all they want, as long as its an honest, respectful dialogue then its all good.

not trying to pin this on you womanfish, I am talking more broadly about my perceptions of this forum in general, as a relative newcomer here.

Free Your Mind seems to be an ironic name for this particular thread, to be honest. Might just as well be called the Star Chamber.

I'm not saying that both candidates weren't looked upon unfavorably. But was it reality?
As we have seen now, Russia and other Eastern European countries set up a cottage industry of fake websites, blogs, news, etc... about Hillary Clinton. These were happily believed by right wingers, but sadly gobbled up by Bernie supporters as well, many of whom turned into rabid, reason-less, #neverhillary goons. And also believed by those everyday folks that don't pay a lot of attention or take time to do any fact-checking.

So much of the information that was out there was false. Add to this the drip of information that came from Russia/Wikileaks who now look like they were in cahoots with members of the Trump team.
Then add the FBI, who would release dubiously timed info about Clinton through the election, each time ending up being nothing, but in the meantime skewing public perception.

So what you had was a distortion of reality that caused people to say something as ludicrous as "lesser of two evils".

I could make a lengthy list of outstanding achievements and great things that Clinton has accomplished in her lifetime, that have helped people. Women, children, minorities, the less fortunate. Stories of her compassion and care for her constituents, colleagues and in her personal life.
The same could not be said of Trump.
A narcissist, serial liar, know-nothing, misogynist, sexual assaulter, racist, sexist, con-man
vs.
a stilted, non-charismatic, policy wonk that handled her email poorly.

That is not the lesser of two evils in any rational, clear-minded person's book.
 
I'm not saying that both candidates weren't looked upon unfavorably. But was it reality?
As we have seen now, Russia and other Eastern European countries set up a cottage industry of fake websites, blogs, news, etc... about Hillary Clinton. These were happily believed by right wingers, but sadly gobbled up by Bernie supporters as well, many of whom turned into rabid, reason-less, #neverhillary goons. And also believed by those everyday folks that don't pay a lot of attention or take time to do any fact-checking.

So much of the information that was out there was false. Add to this the drip of information that came from Russia/Wikileaks who now look like they were in cahoots with members of the Trump team.
Then add the FBI, who would release dubiously timed info about Clinton through the election, each time ending up being nothing, but in the meantime skewing public perception.

So what you had was a distortion of reality that caused people to say something as ludicrous as "lesser of two evils".

I could make a lengthy list of outstanding achievements and great things that Clinton has accomplished in her lifetime, that have helped people. Women, children, minorities, the less fortunate. Stories of her compassion and care for her constituents, colleagues and in her personal life.
The same could not be said of Trump.
A narcissist, serial liar, know-nothing, misogynist, sexual assaulter, racist, sexist, con-man
vs.
a stilted, non-charismatic, policy wonk that handled her email poorly.

That is not the lesser of two evils in any rational, clear-minded person's book.

I think your pro-Clinton bias is distorting - if not destroying - your ability to see things objectively, or to recognize that what you feel personally, does not represent objective reality.

Specifically, you are operating from the assumption that anyone who did not support Hillary had to have been influenced by the Russians or Wikileaks.

Suffice to say this is ludicrous.
 
Objectively if we look at qualifications

There was no doubt who was more qualified for the job.
 
Are there Democrats cheering him on? I see McCain and Graham were quick to drum up the war support.

Trump is about to find out how difficult Foreign Policy is
 
then you also must agree that John McCain should have won in 08.

OK, got it.



No. You wanted a fact.

And to compare Obama in 08 to Trump is still pretty lame.

There were many factors to why Clinton Is not POTUS. Not every trump voter was influenced by Russia. Or a racist. Or a sexist.

But a lot were.

The EC put a man with zero governing experience in the White House and it's shown after 11 weeks. 34% approval rating. Failure to make any deals.

And now we'll see how he does when it comes to Syria and North Korea.

Does anyone really think he and his team will handle it better than Obama, or W?
 
No. You wanted a fact.

And to compare Obama in 08 to Trump is still pretty lame.

There were many factors to why Clinton Is not POTUS. Not every trump voter was influenced by Russia. Or a racist. Or a sexist.

But a lot were.

The EC put a man with zero governing experience in the White House and it's shown after 11 weeks. 34% approval rating. Failure to make any deals.

And now we'll see how he does when it comes to Syria and North Korea.

Does anyone really think he and his team will handle it better than Obama, or W?

Objectively, McCain was more qualified than Obama. That's a simple truth that I was pointing out because you made the same point about HC versus Trump.

This is not complicated. But you seem intent on making it so through this stream of other comments that have no bearing on what I said.
 
McCain was much more qualified than Obama.

And he might have won had it not been for Palin
 
I find it interesting that the two of you are arguing, because I find these two posts, in series, to be very agreeable with my own views.

Yes, there's no doubt that Hillary Clinton was objectively the more qualified candidate. There's also a clear cut bias by Clinton diehards that Clinton was imply infallible.

Let's make this clear: Donald Trump is president and it has nothing to do with the qualifications of Clinton or Trump. She was far more qualified than he was. Even republicans admit to that. They just didn't like her.

To me, it seems as though Clinton diehards can't accept the fact that simple logic failed them, and that a more complex logic was necessary to explain the bullshit results that, while explained by complex logic, are not reasonable.

I think your pro-Clinton bias is distorting - if not destroying - your ability to see things objectively, or to recognize that what you feel personally, does not represent objective reality.

Specifically, you are operating from the assumption that anyone who did not support Hillary had to have been influenced by the Russians or Wikileaks.

Suffice to say this is ludicrous.




Objectively if we look at qualifications

There was no doubt who was more qualified for the job.
 
So who is Iggy Fizz? My guess is the Bernie Bro previously alluded to a couple pages back.

People don't just show up in threads with preexisting opinions on other posters and parts of the forum.
 
So who is Iggy Fizz? My guess is the Bernie Bro previously alluded to a couple pages back.

People don't just show up in threads with preexisting opinions on other posters and parts of the forum.

i've been fairly confident since this user joined that we'll find out who they are once the next big gun control debate starts up in FYM.
 
Last edited:



What should we do?

There is no easy answer and any answer has some really shit consequences.

My personal opinion is that the rest of the world needs to help out. USA included.

I don't believe we need to be the police force, but honestly who else will step up?

There is plenty of blame to go around in that region, but I don't know if we can just sit back and do nothing.

With Trump, maybe this is the beginning of WW3. Our state department is under staffed, same with positions in department of defense.

Maybe Ivanka has a solution
 
You're right, maybe THIS time intervening in the Middle East will be a good idea. We're due for one of these to finally work, right?
 
I'm really torn about how I feel about what's happening right now. I feel like no matter who was president, this would've happened with the way things are right now. IDK. I don't like the idea of this administration doing anything war-related, though, of course.
 
That's not all she is saying there, but who cares.
I agree it's not all she's saying, but you only quoting the headline was just as misleading.

She clearly was advocating to go on at least some sort of offensive, but she wasn't asking for war either.
 
Anyone who thinks bombing an airfield wraps this up nice and tidy is either lying or very misguided, whether you're talking about Trump and his supporters or Clinton and her supporters.

This is only the beginning of this, and she knows that.
 
Anyone who thinks bombing an airfield wraps this up nice and tidy is either lying or very misguided, whether you're talking about Trump and his supporters or Clinton and her supporters.

This is only the beginning of this, and she knows that.

Well she doesn't seem to think that either, but again, WHY are we still talking about Hillary Clinton?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom