What's new
By:

Never Trump

I get a kick out of this line of thinking that implies or actually states something like the following:

"I've always voted my true conscience, but I just can't do it this time unless I vote for a third party candidate. Consequences be damned."


What sort of dreamland have these folks been living in? How have they not only taken the bait of the U.S.'s brand of democratic freedom, but swallowed the hook? Previously, how has U.S. Party Politics managed to produce a candidate that dovetails so well with their conscience?

In this political climate, the odds are in favor of that person being a spurned republican who's trying to act balanced.
 
In my opinion the main reason Trump will not release his tax returns is that they would show he has practically no charitable giving, contrary to what he has claimed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...able-main_trumpfoundation607pm:homepage/story

[The Trump Foundation, using other people's money] even gives in situations in which Trump publicly put himself on the hook for a donation — as when he promised a gift “out of my wallet” on NBC’s “The Celebrity Apprentice.” The Trump Foundation paid off most of those on-air promises. A TV production company paid others. The Post could find no instance in which a celebrity’s charity got a gift from Trump’s own wallet.
Click to expand...
 
So, looks like there was a little dust up this weekend over baskets of deplorables. Whether the basket is half full or just a quarter full. Clinton came out and said she thought half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable, then, upon careful reflection and hurried focus group consultations, she walked it back to maybe twenty-five percent.

First, just who are the deplorables? Are they merely mischievous like minions, or are they super-villains, related to the incredibles but opposite in temperament and disposition? I think we should be more conservative in our thinking. For the sake of simplicity, let’s summarize them as Trump supporters deserving of strong condemnation because of their contemptible, hopelessly bad, bobble-headed and babble-brained views. In other words, a dictionary worthy definition and certainly one everyone that hates Trump can agree upon.

Now on to the numbers. Admittedly, the numbers are a bit rough because who in their right mind would openly admit to bobbing their head when babbling about their views? (All those nodding your head in agreement, please disqualify yourself from further reading until you go eat breakfast.) Okay then, here is the breakdown on Trump supporters and their deplorable opinions: a solid majority, 65 percent, think Obama is a muslim while 60 percent believe he was not born in the USA; 50 percent believe black people are more violent than white people; 40 percent think black people are lazy; 30 percent want LGBT people banned from entering the United States; 16 percent believe “whites are a superior race” while another 14 percent are not sure; and finally, a full 20 percent disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Taking all these numbers into consideration, how do we decide on Clinton's deplorable percentages? Maybe it depends on how much you hate Obama versus how big a mistake you think Lincoln made with his emancipation nonsense. Or maybe not. For me, I think the half basket of deplorable may well be too full, twenty-five percent seems like a more solid, irrefutable estimate. Clinton probably should have gone with that to start with.
 
Jonah said:
So, looks like there was a little dust up this weekend over baskets of deplorables. Whether the basket is half full or just a quarter full. Clinton came out and said she thought half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable, then, upon careful reflection and hurried focus group consultations, she walked it back to maybe twenty-five percent.

First, just who are the deplorables? Are they merely mischievous like minions, or are they super-villains, related to the incredibles but opposite in temperament and disposition? I think we should be more conservative in our thinking. For the sake of simplicity, let’s summarize them as Trump supporters deserving of strong condemnation because of their contemptible, hopelessly bad, bobble-headed and babble-brained views. In other words, a dictionary worthy definition and certainly one everyone that hates Trump can agree upon.

Now on to the numbers. Admittedly, the numbers are a bit rough because who in their right mind would openly admit to bobbing their head when babbling about their views? (All those nodding your head in agreement, please disqualify yourself from further reading until you go eat breakfast.) Okay then, here is the breakdown on Trump supporters and their deplorable opinions: a solid majority, 65 percent, think Obama is a muslim while 60 percent believe he was not born in the USA; 50 percent believe black people are more violent than white people; 40 percent think black people are lazy; 30 percent want LGBT people banned from entering the United States; 16 percent believe “whites are a superior race” while another 14 percent are not sure; and finally, a full 20 percent disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Taking all these numbers into consideration, how do we decide on Clinton's deplorable percentages? Maybe it depends on how much you hate Obama versus how big a mistake you think Lincoln made with his emancipation nonsense. Or maybe not. For me, I think the half basket of deplorable may well be too full, twenty-five percent seems like a more solid, irrefutable estimate. Clinton probably should have gone with that to start with.
Click to expand...

Looks to me you've gone off the deep end yourself with this sort of analysis.

Trumps support base is pretty much solid normal people, sans the political hyperbolic types of all kinds. Most of those sorta real categoricals you mention have gone on to recognize Trump for the CFR pick he is, already. Even me.

Lincoln's EP excluded freeing slaves in States that did not secede from the Union. The EP was about insulting the Confederacy. Slavery was done, would have ended with the economics of new farm machinery withing the decade. That's why the carpetbaggers and the repugnant political impositions upon the South were just regressive. Giving the blacks forty acres and a mule set agriculture back ten years in the South. Northern farmers got the machinery and did well.
 
babe said:
Looks to me you've gone off the deep end yourself with this sort of analysis.

Trumps support base is pretty much solid normal people, sans the political hyperbolic types of all kinds. Most of those sorta real categoricals you mention have gone on to recognize Trump for the CFR pick he is, already. Even me.
Click to expand...
It was a tongue-in-cheek post based on the overreaction to Clinton’s use of the word deplorable. Not intended to be taken so seriously.

babe said:
Lincoln's EP excluded freeing slaves in States that did not secede from the Union. The EP was about insulting the Confederacy. Slavery was done, would have ended with the economics of new farm machinery withing the decade. That's why the carpetbaggers and the repugnant political impositions upon the South were just regressive. Giving the blacks forty acres and a mule set agriculture back ten years in the South. Northern farmers got the machinery and did well.
Click to expand...
I have family living throughout the South so I know how the EP is viewed in some quarters. Obviously, though, it was about much more than insulting the Confederacy. It allowed freed slaves to enlist in the Union Army, explicitly made the eradication of slavery into a Union goal, and revitalized the Union war effort. Finally, how did “giving the blacks” forty acres and a mule set agriculture back ten years in the South? Forty acres and a mule was a General Sherman order (January 1965) for reparations that was, other than in a few communities for a few months, never fulfilled. The order was overturned by President Andrew Johnson in the fall of 1965.
 
OK. The "forty acres and mule" was a slogan more than a fact, but reparations did set back southern agriculture. While northern farmers began buying machinery and enlarging their farms, the South was stagnant. The Democrats trying to hold on to their power by denying blacks voting rights, because the blacks then would have voted R. Breaking up large plantations and not getting machinery as they would have if the war hadn't happened.

The blacks were still cheap labor but there was no money for machinery.

You probably have more information than I do, but let's see if there is a better way to pull it together into a big picture.

I'm the sort of person who, when I find someone with a point of view, I like to see how it fleshes out in real life. I do listen to people, and sometimes learn something.
 
babe said:
OK. The "forty acres and mule" was a slogan more than a fact, but reparations did set back southern agriculture. While northern farmers began buying machinery and enlarging their farms, the South was stagnant. The Democrats trying to hold on to their power by denying blacks voting rights, because the blacks then would have voted R. Breaking up large plantations and not getting machinery as they would have if the war hadn't happened.

The blacks were still cheap labor but there was no money for machinery.

You probably have more information than I do, but let's see if there is a better way to pull it together into a big picture.

I'm the sort of person who, when I find someone with a point of view, I like to see how it fleshes out in real life. I do listen to people, and sometimes learn something.
Click to expand...
What is the big picture are you trying to pull together? The lasting effects of Reconstruction on the South? Interesting topic, although much too big for a Never Trump thread, it fills library shelves. Maybe bring it back to Trump with something more isolated like why so many Southern whites connect to Trump on a visceral and emotional level that travels back in time to Reconstruction and beyond.

By the way, sorry about the stupid mistakes in my previous post, I obviously meant 1865 in both instances.
 
Romney is elitist scum and is only for globalism and can even SUPPORT HILLARY? What? The idiot loser ones need to pull up big boy panty and wait cry. Hillary is pawn for ugly outcomes. This we even talk in our own small villages here.
 
Gameface said:
It was a very poorly worded question and I believe it was intended to be what it ended up being, a "gotcha" moment.

That said, Johnson has not impressed me at all. All his answers seem kind of disjointed and like he doesn't have a firm grasp of the subject matter. I'll take a very competent Hillary Clinton over him any day of the week.
Click to expand...


:confused:

What? I think if you know something the only thing she can be competent is to erode rights of citizen of US and idiot citizen can't even see it true!. It is true and the surface is ugly think hard what lie beneath it. OK? I know you can't like me.
 
Who knew Donald Trump's uncle was an MIT professor of engineering and director of MIT's high voltage lab?

I thought this was an interesting article.
https://scitation.aip.org/content/a... 5–9 September&dm_i=1Y69,4H6Q1,E1PARG,GJ1W4,1

pt.5.9068figure2-72.jpg
 
NAOS said:
I get a kick out of this line of thinking that implies or actually states something like the following:

"I've always voted my true conscience, but I just can't do it this time unless I vote for a third party candidate. Consequences be damned."


What sort of dreamland have these folks been living in? How have they not only taken the bait of the U.S.'s brand of democratic freedom, but swallowed the hook? Previously, how has U.S. Party Politics managed to produce a candidate that dovetails so well with their conscience?

In this political climate, the odds are in favor of that person being a spurned republican who's trying to act balanced.
Click to expand...

What a great tragedy to watch. Those who vote their conscience are responsible for our two party system, then they complain endlessly when their creation brings us Hillary vs Trump, Mitt vs Obama II, & Bush vs Kerry.

The only lesser of two evils difference this time is Trump owns up and plays along with the ******* line and Hillary has been beaten up worse than Tiger Woods' career revival efforts.
 
Not sure if this got posted yet, but wow is this spot on, if you are even vaguely familiar with Zapp Brannigan and Futurama (the best TV series of all-time that didn't have the words "breaking" or "bad" in the title).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arr0VZGP3w0
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uc4jLK8D0M
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnW70ltZcbE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top