Off Topic · Off Topic: six months later, do people who voted for Trump still support this guy? (page 10)
Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
The walls are closing in, his own staff is worried enough about him to continue and organized campaign of providing much needed transparency. For all his authoritarian tendencies, he is the most weakened president in modern history. A big reason is Trump expects loyalty, and shows none.
Still wouldn't have voted for Hillary either. Dont believe enough people really know enough about her. About some of the things she was responsible for while in office. Not internet conspiracy theories, actual policy.
Wouldn't have felt much safer with her in office.
Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
You're still over reaching, claiming to speak for others to make your argument in some childish internet forum victory lap now. Stop trolling and get into a conversation. Take a position, make an informed argument or just say something worth debating. Express a concern relevant to current events. Just saying 'Trump sucks, I told you so' isn't a position worthy of discussing. Trump is dangerous, so why? Just look at Gustavballer's post above. In one paragraph he spoke volumes. He consolidated all of his thoughts into one coherent paragraph we can all understand and it is clear he could say a whole lot more if he felt like it. You my friend have said nothing, you are just trolling
Rookie wrote:Dude, I spent darn near a 7-8 months debating why Trump would be a horrible president. It's over, he's in office. No use debating a campaign that already took place.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
You're still over reaching, claiming to speak for others to make your argument in some childish internet forum victory lap now. Stop trolling and get into a conversation. Take a position, make an informed argument or just say something worth debating. Express a concern relevant to current events. Just saying 'Trump sucks, I told you so' isn't a position worthy of discussing. Trump is dangerous, so why? Just look at Gustavballer's post above. In one paragraph he spoke volumes. He consolidated all of his thoughts into one coherent paragraph we can all understand and it is clear he could say a whole lot more if he felt like it. You my friend have said nothing, you are just trolling
But 7 months in I think it's very reasonable to ask the people responsible for this presidency to explain why they put the country in this situation. Why you take offense to such a simple question is revealing. I didn't help put Trump in office so I have nothing to explain.
You said you were "optimistic" about a Trump presidency but can't reference a single tangible point to justify your optimism. Pretty simple question. Not sure why it's like pulling teeth to get you to explain what Trump did before or during his campaign that made you "optimistic" about him being president. I'm not asking your to dissect his agenda or actions.
I didn't think asking someone to explain their own statement was so difficult.
Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Dude, I spent darn near a 7-8 months debating why Trump would be a horrible president. It's over, he's in office. No use debating a campaign that already took place.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
You're still over reaching, claiming to speak for others to make your argument in some childish internet forum victory lap now. Stop trolling and get into a conversation. Take a position, make an informed argument or just say something worth debating. Express a concern relevant to current events. Just saying 'Trump sucks, I told you so' isn't a position worthy of discussing. Trump is dangerous, so why? Just look at Gustavballer's post above. In one paragraph he spoke volumes. He consolidated all of his thoughts into one coherent paragraph we can all understand and it is clear he could say a whole lot more if he felt like it. You my friend have said nothing, you are just trolling
But 7 months in I think it's very reasonable to ask the people responsible for this presidency to explain why they put the country in this situation. Why you take offense to such a simple question is revealing. I didn't help put Trump in office so I have nothing to explain.
You said you were "optimistic" about a Trump presidency but can't reference a single tangible point to justify your optimism. Pretty simple question. Not sure why it's like pulling teeth to get you to explain what Trump did before or during his campaign that made you "optimistic" about him being president. I'm not asking your to dissect his agenda or actions.
I didn't think asking someone to explain their own statement was so difficult.
First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.
I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312
Click here to view the Tweet
Rookie wrote:First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
Voting for him or not, you acknowledge that he was stupid and an idiot and extreme; your words exactly. And yet you also felt let maybe he wouldn't screw it up.
You were somehow conned into thinking that maybe he wouldn't screw things up. There was ZERO basis for thinking he would or could accomplish anything.
And this is how a lot of people felt and why they voted for Trump.
djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312
Click here to view the Tweet
Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.
Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.
Rookie wrote:Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Dude, I spent darn near a 7-8 months debating why Trump would be a horrible president. It's over, he's in office. No use debating a campaign that already took place.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
You're still over reaching, claiming to speak for others to make your argument in some childish internet forum victory lap now. Stop trolling and get into a conversation. Take a position, make an informed argument or just say something worth debating. Express a concern relevant to current events. Just saying 'Trump sucks, I told you so' isn't a position worthy of discussing. Trump is dangerous, so why? Just look at Gustavballer's post above. In one paragraph he spoke volumes. He consolidated all of his thoughts into one coherent paragraph we can all understand and it is clear he could say a whole lot more if he felt like it. You my friend have said nothing, you are just trolling
But 7 months in I think it's very reasonable to ask the people responsible for this presidency to explain why they put the country in this situation. Why you take offense to such a simple question is revealing. I didn't help put Trump in office so I have nothing to explain.
You said you were "optimistic" about a Trump presidency but can't reference a single tangible point to justify your optimism. Pretty simple question. Not sure why it's like pulling teeth to get you to explain what Trump did before or during his campaign that made you "optimistic" about him being president. I'm not asking your to dissect his agenda or actions.
I didn't think asking someone to explain their own statement was so difficult.
First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.
I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
I've heard quite a bit in the debate on both sides...
One of the many talking points for Trump supporters has been; we haven't seen enough progress in the last 20 years by experienced politicians. Perhaps it's time for a change?
Right time, maybe the wrong guy... But I get it and some of his talking points resonated with middle and lower class America, as well as others.
Ridiculous insurance premiums, border security, lost jobs and stagnant wages, drain the swamp, etc... He also positioned himself well in the polls by backing our military and supporting law enforcement.
He ran against a candidate who's blamed for killing soldiers, having a scummy husband, mishandling classified information and being generally perceived as corrupt/untrustworthy.
Everyone knew Trumps flaws by the time this was over and some of you guys still don't get it. It wasn't a matter of being conned be Trump, it was a matter of not being conned by another Clinton.
martin wrote:Rookie wrote:First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
Voting for him or not, you acknowledge that he was stupid and an idiot and extreme; your words exactly. And yet you also felt let maybe he wouldn't screw it up.
You were somehow conned into thinking that maybe he wouldn't screw things up. There was ZERO basis for thinking he would or could accomplish anything.
And this is how a lot of people felt and why they voted for Trump.
I get it now, this thread is really about liberals calling out conservatives for an I told you so. Whenever you have two distict groups on opposites sides of every issue there needs to be compromise to get anything done. We have entered an era where both sides refuse to compromise at all, zero cooperation. The sytem is broken and I don't know how it gets fixed.
gr33d wrote:djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312
Click here to view the TweetAffirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.
Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.
it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.
gr33d wrote:
Right time, maybe the wrong guy... But I get it and some of his talking points resonated with middle and lower class America, as well as others.Ridiculous insurance premiums, border security, lost jobs and stagnant wages, drain the swamp, etc... He also positioned himself well in the polls by backing our military and supporting law enforcement.
He ran against a candidate who's blamed for killing soldiers, having a scummy husband, mishandling classified information and being generally perceived as corrupt/untrustworthy.
Everyone knew Trumps flaws by the time this was over and some of you guys still don't get it. It wasn't a matter of being conned be Trump, it was a matter of not being conned by another Clinton.
You forgot to mention that Clinton herself assassinated Seth Rich...got to get with the program, man.
Trump had NO health plan of his own and did NOTHING to back the plan put out by the Senate, which was going to increase insurance premiums and take health care from millions, if the wall gets built it will be paid for by U.S. citizens, he's basically brought in Goldman Sachs to run his economic program, he's deceived folks about certain jobs created and he and his daughter continue to have almost all of their products made overseas, and he is now contributing to the destruction of the environment.
Won't even get into all the lies he puts out on a regular basis.
Clinton was no perfect candidate, but on her worst day she would do a better job than the clown in office.
He won because of racist and ethnic fears and the fact that the religious right was willing to support a pussy grabber as long as they got a Supreme Court judge who is will to overturn Roe v Wade.
He won because he got the help of a foreign nation and cult figure Assange to hammer away at issues which, in the end, have proven to have be meaningless.
He won because the GOP decided to create a Benghazi scandal, after watching dozens of people in U.S. ambassadors get killed in the previous Presidency.
Trump has proven to be the most incompetent fool we've ever seen in the presidency. Live with it, and take responsibility for it.
Sad to see people trying to justify voting for Trump or a 3P candidate by hammering Hillary. Very sad.
Rookie wrote:martin wrote:Rookie wrote:First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
Voting for him or not, you acknowledge that he was stupid and an idiot and extreme; your words exactly. And yet you also felt let maybe he wouldn't screw it up.
You were somehow conned into thinking that maybe he wouldn't screw things up. There was ZERO basis for thinking he would or could accomplish anything.
And this is how a lot of people felt and why they voted for Trump.
I get it now, this thread is really about liberals calling out conservatives for an I told you so. Whenever you have two distict groups on opposites sides of every issue there needs to be compromise to get anything done. We have entered an era where both sides refuse to compromise at all, zero cooperation. The sytem is broken and I don't know how it gets fixed.
When you make a decision that has grave implications, you need to do it judiciously and with sound reason. This is not like choosing between McDonalds and Burger King for dinner and you just throw your hands up in the air and decide BK because you've been to McDonalds for the last 3 straight times and were like "well it was just eh so we went with the other"
Your assumption is that there were 2 district groups on opposite sides of every issue, that assumptions was a completely inept one.
gr33d wrote:this is just not right, because it implies a similar outcome with both candidates, which would not have been the case.Rookie wrote:Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Dude, I spent darn near a 7-8 months debating why Trump would be a horrible president. It's over, he's in office. No use debating a campaign that already took place.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
You're still over reaching, claiming to speak for others to make your argument in some childish internet forum victory lap now. Stop trolling and get into a conversation. Take a position, make an informed argument or just say something worth debating. Express a concern relevant to current events. Just saying 'Trump sucks, I told you so' isn't a position worthy of discussing. Trump is dangerous, so why? Just look at Gustavballer's post above. In one paragraph he spoke volumes. He consolidated all of his thoughts into one coherent paragraph we can all understand and it is clear he could say a whole lot more if he felt like it. You my friend have said nothing, you are just trolling
But 7 months in I think it's very reasonable to ask the people responsible for this presidency to explain why they put the country in this situation. Why you take offense to such a simple question is revealing. I didn't help put Trump in office so I have nothing to explain.
You said you were "optimistic" about a Trump presidency but can't reference a single tangible point to justify your optimism. Pretty simple question. Not sure why it's like pulling teeth to get you to explain what Trump did before or during his campaign that made you "optimistic" about him being president. I'm not asking your to dissect his agenda or actions.
I didn't think asking someone to explain their own statement was so difficult.
First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.
I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
I've heard quite a bit in the debate on both sides...
One of the many talking points for Trump supporters has been; we haven't seen enough progress in the last 20 years by experienced politicians. Perhaps it's time for a change?
Right time, maybe the wrong guy... But I get it and some of his talking points resonated with middle and lower class America, as well as others.
Ridiculous insurance premiums, border security, lost jobs and stagnant wages, drain the swamp, etc... He also positioned himself well in the polls by backing our military and supporting law enforcement.
He ran against a candidate who's blamed for killing soldiers, having a scummy husband, mishandling classified information and being generally perceived as corrupt/untrustworthy.
Everyone knew Trumps flaws by the time this was over and some of you guys still don't get it. It wasn't a matter of being conned be Trump, it was a matter of not being conned by another Clinton.
Trump ran on a campaign that McDonalds was bad, failing, disgusting and terrible for you. That part I agree with. But he wasnt offering Whoppers instead. He was offering cat food. Now you get comments like Rookie above saying this is just an I told you so. Its not really the case. Everyone knew Trump's flaws? Not really. They just knew they were sticking it too McDonalds and werent really banking on how nasty the cat food was going to be to eat. Some people knew he was selling cat food all along and no matter how you dressed it up it was going to taste nasty. Guess what.. it tastes nasty.
The best outcome would have been for Hillary to be POTUS. It would have been organized and non embarrassing if nothing else. It also most likely would have been a 4 year and done term. Failing behind Trump would be been a real blow to that party and forced the GOP to do what the Dems are doing now, rethink and remake what you are all about.
Now we ALL have to eat cat food. The best part is when guys like Guns come around tell us how good the cat food tastes. This will end in war for the US. We will attack NKorea or rattle some can loud enough to distract.
Cat food.
He tells lies so big his supporters can't see it.
He got elected on his ability to go so far off the truth where no candidate ever went before.
We have been desensitized by reality TV to the point Trump became entertainment and the news media got great viewership to see this all unfold.
But it didn't, it just manifested itself. TV standards historically had some integrity to it.
"Alternative facts"........C'mon people, this is unbelievable!!!!!
Kakistocracy: 1) a state or country run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens (Wikipedia); 2) Government by the worst persons; a form or government in which the worst persons are in power (Dictionary. Com); 3) Government by the least qualified, most stupid members (amroali.com).
djsunyc wrote:wargames wrote:Gudris wrote:Trump wants to be Dictator, he applies all the russian methods in American minds, it is very effective, but you dont know that because you never saw it before, i lived in Communist country next to russia and i know hot it works very well, you guys must be really careful with trump.I feel like he would be more effective if it wasn't such a known secret he is in bed with Russia. Like a more discreet Trump would of done a lot more damage and maybe could of got the ACA repeal he wanted
a more discreet trump would not have won the election.
well said!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former U.S. Justice Department official has become the latest lawyer to join special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a spokesman for the team confirmed.Greg Andres started on Tuesday, becoming the 16th lawyer on the team, said Josh Stueve, a spokesman for the special counsel.
Most recently a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.
Mueller, who was appointed special counsel in May, is looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election, among other matters. Congressional committees are also investigating the matter.
That Mueller continues to expand his team means the probe is not going to end anytime soon, said Robert Ray, who succeeded Kenneth Starr as independent counsel for the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration.
“It’s an indication that the investigation is going to extend well into 2018,” said Ray. “Whether it extends beyond 2018 is an open question.”
The special counsel last month asked the White House to preserve all of its communications about a June 2016 meeting that included the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Russian officials have denied meddling in the U.S. election, and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign.
Among the cases Andres oversaw at the Justice Department was the prosecution of Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford, who was convicted in 2012 for operating an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.
Before that, Andres was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn for over a decade, eventually serving as chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office there. He prosecuted several members of the Bonanno organized crime family, one of whom was accused of plotting to have Andres killed.
A graduate of Notre Dame and University of Chicago Law School, Andres was a Peace Corps volunteer in Benin from 1989 to 1992.He is married to Ronnie Abrams, a U.S. district judge in Manhattan nominated to the bench in 2011 by Democratic President Barack Obama.
Others on the special counsel team include Andrew Weissmann, chief of the Justice Department’s fraud section; Andrew Goldstein, former head of the public corruption unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan; and James Quarles, who was an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation that helped bring down President Richard Nixon.
Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.
djsunyc wrote:gr33d wrote:djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312
Click here to view the TweetAffirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.
Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.
it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.
At some point you have to decide if it's working and I think that's the point... Have we made progress and/or does the method need improvement/change? And are we making inroads at the expense of white and asian educations?
We're an evolving society, things change... People change. But it doesn't always have to be at the expense of our neighbors...
30 years ago women were home, raising kids and taking care of homes... Today, that's almost impossible. And looking at recent wage gap data, we've made great strides here.
fishmike wrote:gr33d wrote:this is just not right, because it implies a similar outcome with both candidates, which would not have been the case.Rookie wrote:Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Dude, I spent darn near a 7-8 months debating why Trump would be a horrible president. It's over, he's in office. No use debating a campaign that already took place.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Translation: you can't explain why you were "optimistic" about Trump as president. Perhaps you should've given this more thought before casting your voting regardless of who you ultimately ended up supporting.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:Maybe we can get to follow up questions if you would answer my initial question. What did Trump ever do prior to running for president that would make someone optimistic he would be an effective president and grow into the position? It's totally fine to admit blind optimism. I would just love to hear something tangible.Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:I just don't understand the basis for "optimism?"Welpee wrote:Rookie wrote:In answer to the Op's thread title. I couldn't stomach voting for either presidential candidate but I tried to remain causiously optomistic on Trump. Now, I just hope we can survive his presidencyMy questions would be optimistic based on what? What qualities did Trump display in his past that indicated he could be a good president? The honest answer for most folks is they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.why do you feel qualified to answer honestly for most folks. Classic overeach here thinking your own opinion is the only one that is correct.
Both candidates suffered from lack of charector. I won't elaborate since you can answer that yourself if you care to even try and be open mided. Trump is easily the dumbest guy in the room. Bush II atleast had moral values and depended on those around him to advise, even if he chose poorly occasionally on whom to listen to. He atleast always meant well even though he was poorly suited for the job.
Trump is still Trump and has more of a wall street morality. I guess my hope was that he could grow into the job but he won't ever shut up long enough to listen and learn from those around him who are smarter, better educated in the world and more experienced. This guy truly has serious issues.
There really is no point in discussing Hillary since she is not President and never will be. The old guard of the DNC will over time be ousted and replaced with new younger, highly educated and more progressive young people. Lets just hope we all survive long enough to seee it happen.
If someone said they thought both Hillary and Trump would be horrible but they thought Trump would be the less horrible of the two, whether I agree or not I could at least understand the rationale. But anybody who says they were "optimistic" that Trump wasn't going to be a train wreck, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation to justify that thought process. You can accuse me of not being "open minded" but I think that's just a camouflage to deflect not having a reasonable answer to the question.
To bring this back to sports, it's like expecting Charles Oakley in the latter stages of his career to begin playing like Charles Barkley. He couldn't do it when he was young, suddenly he's gonna do it when he's old? Trump just continued to do what he's has done best throughout his whole life, conning people. I'm not sure if you're a New Yorker, but if there's any group of people who shouldn't have fallen for the con it's a New Yorker. We know Trump better and for longer than anybody in the world.
What are you basing your knowledge of Trump on, page 6 of the post or personal experience from direct dealings? Also, how do you know Hillary? Answer me that mr new yalkah.
Ok so this is just an internet forum circle jerk, got it.
You're still over reaching, claiming to speak for others to make your argument in some childish internet forum victory lap now. Stop trolling and get into a conversation. Take a position, make an informed argument or just say something worth debating. Express a concern relevant to current events. Just saying 'Trump sucks, I told you so' isn't a position worthy of discussing. Trump is dangerous, so why? Just look at Gustavballer's post above. In one paragraph he spoke volumes. He consolidated all of his thoughts into one coherent paragraph we can all understand and it is clear he could say a whole lot more if he felt like it. You my friend have said nothing, you are just trolling
But 7 months in I think it's very reasonable to ask the people responsible for this presidency to explain why they put the country in this situation. Why you take offense to such a simple question is revealing. I didn't help put Trump in office so I have nothing to explain.
You said you were "optimistic" about a Trump presidency but can't reference a single tangible point to justify your optimism. Pretty simple question. Not sure why it's like pulling teeth to get you to explain what Trump did before or during his campaign that made you "optimistic" about him being president. I'm not asking your to dissect his agenda or actions.
I didn't think asking someone to explain their own statement was so difficult.
First off, like I said orininally I did not vote for Trump so you can get off of that.
I never thought he would get the nomination. I was baffled by his daily stupidity and his increasing popularity. I was certain eventually many things would come out under the scrutiny of a long campaign and he would go down in flames, but they didn't and he didn't.
Towards the end of the race my thinking changed more to 'well he's an idiot but alot of his talking points are important for our country'. Maybe he won't completely screw it up.
When I say cautiously optomistic I mean that he would have to become less extreme to get anything accomplished, more Presidential.
And then there's I'm an American so I will support my president, bitching about it won't change anything.
This guy though, he is worse then a disaster, he is dangerous.
I've heard quite a bit in the debate on both sides...
One of the many talking points for Trump supporters has been; we haven't seen enough progress in the last 20 years by experienced politicians. Perhaps it's time for a change?
Right time, maybe the wrong guy... But I get it and some of his talking points resonated with middle and lower class America, as well as others.
Ridiculous insurance premiums, border security, lost jobs and stagnant wages, drain the swamp, etc... He also positioned himself well in the polls by backing our military and supporting law enforcement.
He ran against a candidate who's blamed for killing soldiers, having a scummy husband, mishandling classified information and being generally perceived as corrupt/untrustworthy.
Everyone knew Trumps flaws by the time this was over and some of you guys still don't get it. It wasn't a matter of being conned be Trump, it was a matter of not being conned by another Clinton.Trump ran on a campaign that McDonalds was bad, failing, disgusting and terrible for you. That part I agree with. But he wasnt offering Whoppers instead. He was offering cat food. Now you get comments like Rookie above saying this is just an I told you so. Its not really the case. Everyone knew Trump's flaws? Not really. They just knew they were sticking it too McDonalds and werent really banking on how nasty the cat food was going to be to eat. Some people knew he was selling cat food all along and no matter how you dressed it up it was going to taste nasty. Guess what.. it tastes nasty.
The best outcome would have been for Hillary to be POTUS. It would have been organized and non embarrassing if nothing else. It also most likely would have been a 4 year and done term. Failing behind Trump would be been a real blow to that party and forced the GOP to do what the Dems are doing now, rethink and remake what you are all about.
Now we ALL have to eat cat food. The best part is when guys like Guns come around tell us how good the cat food tastes. This will end in war for the US. We will attack NKorea or rattle some can loud enough to distract.
Cat food.
Dissagree. The best outcome would have been for neither of them (Hillary or Trump) to become POTUS.