NationStates

Vassenor wrote:So I guess we can add Memorial Day to the list of national holidays Trump thinks is all about him and him alone.

Just rename it to Investigation Day. It's a Memorial to the once less disappointing presidency.

Communist Xomaniax wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Not illegal. There's no law regulating how a private organisation has to choose its favourite candidate.

That's a weak fucking copout and you know it

No it isn't. Not in the fucking slightest. The specific claim made is that there was an offence committed that the FBI should have investigated. That claim was a lie, and my post gives precisely the reason that it's a lie. It's exactly the opposite of a cop-out: it's a direct refutation of the central point.

Also, the whole idea of having a primary is silly and only serves to preserve the shitshow that is two-party politics: the parties should just choose their damned candidates and get on with the real elections.

Luminesa wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So I guess we can add Memorial Day to the list of national holidays Trump thinks is all about him and him alone.

I mean it is definitely a fair bit of bragging, but it's not the worst thing he could have said. Of course, he could have also added something about honoring dead soldiers and loving one another, but...eh. Trump's Twitter would look very different from mine I guess. IF I HAD ONE.

I'm hoping I misunderstood you here. Are you suggesting we credit Trump as having done something good if he tweets something that was absolutely awful but there was potentially something even worse that he could have tweeted, but didn't?

Maineiacs wrote:

Luminesa wrote:I mean it is definitely a fair bit of bragging, but it's not the worst thing he could have said. Of course, he could have also added something about honoring dead soldiers and loving one another, but...eh. Trump's Twitter would look very different from mine I guess. IF I HAD ONE.

I'm hoping I misunderstood you here. Are you suggesting we credit Trump as having done something good if he tweets something that was absolutely awful but there was potentially something even worse that he could have tweeted, but didn't?

...I mean, he's made some god-awful tweets in the past, and while this one was...insensitive, at the very least...based on what he has said in the past I am thinking it could have gotten even worse. I'm not saying it was a "good" tweet, nor do I think we should credit him for anything.

Vassenor wrote:So I guess we can add Memorial Day to the list of national holidays Trump thinks is all about him and him alone.

A coward like cadet bone spur should be ignored.

Salandriagado wrote:

Communist Xomaniax wrote:That's a weak fucking copout and you know it

No it isn't. Not in the fucking slightest. The specific claim made is that there was an offence committed that the FBI should have investigated. That claim was a lie, and my post gives precisely the reason that it's a lie. It's exactly the opposite of a cop-out: it's a direct refutation of the central point.

Also, the whole idea of having a primary is silly and only serves to preserve the shitshow that is two-party politics: the parties should just choose their damned candidates and get on with the real elections.

Closed-door candidate selection was really slimy and prone to corruption by moneyed interests, even moreso than now. It's why they stopped doing that.

Salandriagado wrote:

Communist Xomaniax wrote:That's a weak fucking copout and you know it

No it isn't. Not in the fucking slightest. The specific claim made is that there was an offence committed that the FBI should have investigated. That claim was a lie, and my post gives precisely the reason that it's a lie. It's exactly the opposite of a cop-out: it's a direct refutation of the central point.

Also, the whole idea of having a primary is silly and only serves to preserve the shitshow that is two-party politics: the parties should just choose their damned candidates and get on with the real elections.

Wouldn’t abolishing primaries protect the two party system more than keeping them would?

Maineiacs wrote:

Luminesa wrote:I mean it is definitely a fair bit of bragging, but it's not the worst thing he could have said. Of course, he could have also added something about honoring dead soldiers and loving one another, but...eh. Trump's Twitter would look very different from mine I guess. IF I HAD ONE.

I'm hoping I misunderstood you here. Are you suggesting we credit Trump as having done something good if he tweets something that was absolutely awful but there was potentially something even worse that he could have tweeted, but didn't?

That's basically where we are.

West Leas Oros wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
No it isn't. Not in the fucking slightest. The specific claim made is that there was an offence committed that the FBI should have investigated. That claim was a lie, and my post gives precisely the reason that it's a lie. It's exactly the opposite of a cop-out: it's a direct refutation of the central point.

Also, the whole idea of having a primary is silly and only serves to preserve the shitshow that is two-party politics: the parties should just choose their damned candidates and get on with the real elections.

Wouldn’t abolishing primaries protect the two party system more than keeping them would?

It would certainly add to corruption.

Salandriagado wrote:

Communist Xomaniax wrote:That's a weak fucking copout and you know it

No it isn't. Not in the fucking slightest. The specific claim made is that there was an offence committed that the FBI should have investigated. That claim was a lie, and my post gives precisely the reason that it's a lie. It's exactly the opposite of a cop-out: it's a direct refutation of the central point.

Also, the whole idea of having a primary is silly and only serves to preserve the shitshow that is two-party politics: the parties should just choose their damned candidates and get on with the real elections.

You think Obama was a bad choice?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So I guess we can add Memorial Day to the list of national holidays Trump thinks is all about him and him alone.

A coward like cadet bone spur should be ignored.

Makes me wonder how many times the GOP threw a fit every time Clinton spoke on Memorial Day.

Bombadil wrote:

Maineiacs wrote:

I'm hoping I misunderstood you here. Are you suggesting we credit Trump as having done something good if he tweets something that was absolutely awful but there was potentially something even worse that he could have tweeted, but didn't?

That's basically where we are.

By 2020, trump is going to be in a debate with the dem nominee (I'm assuming he hasn't criminalized the dems at this point), walk up to the microphone, drool all over it and intermittently bark, and his supporters will applaud like he's MLK.

Tobleste wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
That's basically where we are.

By 2020, trump is going to be in a debate with the dem nominee (I'm assuming he hasn't criminalized the dems at this point), walk up to the microphone, drool all over it and intermittently bark, and his supporters will applaud like he's MLK.

Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

Geneviev wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
By 2020, trump is going to be in a debate with the dem nominee (I'm assuming he hasn't criminalized the dems at this point), walk up to the microphone, drool all over it and intermittently bark, and his supporters will applaud like he's MLK.

Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

Boo, you're no fun.

Valrifell wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

Boo, you're no fun.

I know.

Geneviev wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
By 2020, trump is going to be in a debate with the dem nominee (I'm assuming he hasn't criminalized the dems at this point), walk up to the microphone, drool all over it and intermittently bark, and his supporters will applaud like he's MLK.

Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

I'm not sure I'd be surprised if Trump just pulled out a gun and shot the nominee for interrupting one of his incoherent rambles.

Geneviev wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
By 2020, trump is going to be in a debate with the dem nominee (I'm assuming he hasn't criminalized the dems at this point), walk up to the microphone, drool all over it and intermittently bark, and his supporters will applaud like he's MLK.

Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

This is the same Donald Trump who was caught making sexist remarks on tape that would have shot down a Republican's candidacy, much less a Democrat's and the Republican base dismissed it as locker room talk. He could be dripping towards the microphone and his base would try to rationalize every single thing he does.

Bombadil wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

I'm not sure I'd be surprised if Trump just pulled out a gun and shot the nominee for interrupting one of his incoherent rambles.

Actually, that would be Dana Loesch who would do that.

Geneviev wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
By 2020, trump is going to be in a debate with the dem nominee (I'm assuming he hasn't criminalized the dems at this point), walk up to the microphone, drool all over it and intermittently bark, and his supporters will applaud like he's MLK.

Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

I'll grant you the first two; I was being hyperbolic. But as for the third, who'd tell him no? The problem is your fourth point, his supporters are that stupid. That's the fundamental problem with trump: he's been given power by a mix of complete idiots and bigots.

Tobleste wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Firstly, he won't drool. Secondly, he won't bark. Thirdly, if he were that unstable by then, he wouldn't have made it to the debate, let alone the microphone. Fourthly, his supporters aren't that stupid. Fifthly, that was an interesting thing to imagine.

I'll grant you the first two; I was being hyperbolic. But as for the third, who'd tell him no? The problem is your fourth point, his supporters are that stupid. That's the fundamental problem with trump: he's been given power by a mix of complete idiots and bigots.

Probably his nurses would.

No, not at all. I don't consider myself a year ago stupid. Most people who support President Trump are just the same as people who don't.

Geneviev wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
I'll grant you the first two; I was being hyperbolic. But as for the third, who'd tell him no? The problem is your fourth point, his supporters are that stupid. That's the fundamental problem with trump: he's been given power by a mix of complete idiots and bigots.

Probably his nurses would.

No, not at all. I don't consider myself a year ago stupid. Most people who support President Trump are just the same as people who don't.

They just see the world in a fundamentally different way than those that didn't. Such is the psychology of partisanship and tribal attitudes.

Valrifell wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Probably his nurses would.

No, not at all. I don't consider myself a year ago stupid. Most people who support President Trump are just the same as people who don't.

They just see the world in a fundamentally different way than those that didn't. Such is the psychology of partisanship and tribal attitudes.

Not at all.

So, I assume it’s just me, but I’m actually fckin sick of people being like “trump is bigot and evil” because, to me, I think that his corruption and greed is much more damning than him being mean and offensive.

Geneviev wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
I'll grant you the first two; I was being hyperbolic. But as for the third, who'd tell him no? The problem is your fourth point, his supporters are that stupid. That's the fundamental problem with trump: he's been given power by a mix of complete idiots and bigots.

Probably his nurses would.

No, not at all. I don't consider myself a year ago stupid. Most people who support President Trump are just the same as people who don't.

We'll agree to disagree. Anyone who supports that man as president is either incredibly uninformed, unintelligent or immoral. No one can support someone like that without having a fundamentally different sense of right and wrong to what is considered normal in a developed society. That will probably be seen as bigoted by trump supporters but that doesn't make it untrue and I'm happy to be intolerant of intolerance.

West Leas Oros wrote:So, I assume it’s just me, but I’m actually fckin sick of people being like “trump is bigot and evil” because, to me, I think that his corruption and greed is much more damning than him being mean and offensive.

So you don't care about minorities? :^)