To the boobs on this thread who insult Trump’s voters insinuating that they are not nearly as intelligent as say the voters who turned out for our current failed President.
Perhaps they are not aware that a large minority of Obama’s support came from very stupid people.
The following video revolves around a woman who wants “free money from Obama”. It’s a classic and I’m sure many have heard it before. There are many other videos exposing Obama’s supporters for what they are. Mitt Romney made reference to the 47% who will vote democrat no matter what. They do this because many of them are partially or fully dependent on the government. It may have harmed Romney’s candidacy but he was spot on.
Note, as I have said many times I am NOT a Trump supporter but tired of the left wing bologna.
Zeb, you want to hear a good story about dumb Obama supporters? I was at a company repairing and maintaining the barge fleet for Consol Energy when Obama made his statement about shutting down the coal industry. Across the board every single one of my coworkers vowed to vote for the fucker anyways, “cuz Romney is a dick”. Of course he was elected. Then our contract was canceled and division shut down. No one was laid off, just placed through out the company with targets on their backs.
Fwiw- Hillary just made a very similar statement about the shale gas/fracking industry. For some reason I don’t think she’s joking.
I was thinking that he was giving us a taste of what the one article posted above described, but I’m also pretty sure that he does think that I’m an idiot.
Smh is 10x better than me than clarifying his positions, but I’m bored so what the hell I’ll jump in.
Trump has proven that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. An easy example is discussing nuclear power on a world scale without knowing what the nuclear triad is. Trump can’t be trusted because he has no track record, has flip flopped on almost everything, and has lawsuits against him for fraudulent businesses where he scammed people (Trump University). Trump has no moral compass proven by his lack of commitment to issues that he is now supposedly strong on. The gibberish that comes out of his mouth is not policy, it is ranting about how bad things are and saying he will fix them because he likes winning. Did you watch the last debate?
The point is that he is where he is because voters are ignoring the flaws of his character, policy, and elect-ability. Trusting someone with no experience, no record of holding positions, and has been shown to have a serious lack of knowledge about the complex issues for a job to do that same job is troubling. The assumptions are true, and a voter who cannot see that is, as smh said, stupid.
[quote=“Chushin, post:1286, topic:212571, full:true”] Of course if you begin with the assumption that Trump knows nothing about anything, can be trusted on nothing, and has no inner moral compass, you will reach the conclusion that only a stupid person would vote for him![/quote]
In a rush so I want to cut to the quick (much of the other stuff this thread has been over already, including the point about whether or not e.g. Clinton and her supporters deserve this scorn).
The quoted portion is the heart of the matter, and my response is as follows: I’m not making any assumptions. Not a single one. I have been describing objective reality. There isn’t any question, none whatsoever, as to whether or not Donald Trump:
– is a conspiracy theorist (this alone disqualifies him from the position of Commander in Chief, being as it is an admission of irrationality. No other candidate is comparably incapable of base-level adult rationality, and rationality is the great sine qua non of statesmanship [here the word “statesmanship” bows its head in disgust at having been forced to appear in such uncomfortable proximity to the word “Trump”]);
– understands military strategy and tactics (this is an excerpt from Trump’s embarrassingly, ludicrously stupid response to a question about which of the media by which we are capable of delivering nuclear weapons he would prioritize for modernization. Note that he does not have the first fucking clue what’s being asked [and here we pause to admire the fact that he was even too risibly dumb to figure it out from the question, wherein lay more than enough clues], which is to say that he answered this question with as much base knowledge as we’d expect of a reality TV character. Note furthermore that he manages to so bungle whatever point he’s actually trying to make as to render the entire thing literally meaningless and incomprehensible: “But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ball game. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out – if we didn’t have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can’t just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn’t care. It was hand-to-hand combat”);
– can communicate lucid information in English like a native adult speaker of the language;
– prescribes wise trade policy (“economic disaster,” as the Republican national security community correctly has it);
– evinces even the barest understanding of either American governance or contemporary world affairs;
– is willing to make public policy prescriptions that are logically incoherent and internally contradictory (“he swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence,” as, again, the Republican national security community correctly has it);
The above, partial (I didn’t even get into the fascist impulses and lying xenophobia, both so naturally beloved by the Stormfronters) list of fundamental – not political or partisan – intellectual defects is entirely unique among serious (and by serious I mean “may be the nominee”) candidates in modern American history.
Now, I’m done arguing on the vague, substance-less periphery. The above argument is detailed, and it is valid, which is to say that as long as the factual propositions of which it’s made are true, it supports its conclusion (and then some). Is it sound? Are the propositions true? You implied that it was not when you used the word “assumption.” So, where have I assumed? Where am I missing evidence? Where have I got anything wrong? Specifically, I mean.
There are a couple reasons that I’m using the term. One has to do with the fact that directness is clarity in the English language. For reasons given, Trump voters are simply stupid, and their stupidity is the operative quality vis-a-vis the topic of this thread. That is to say, literally no defect other than a simple intellectual one can push a man to will a mumbling conspiracy theorist to the most powerful office on the planet. Cortes above used the word “irrational,” to which I respond: OK, but that is literally a synonym for “stupid.” Knowledge, i.e. raw accumulation of facts, is related to intellect/stupidity, but it is entirely secondary. As we all know, the power or weakness of the rational faculties is what makes a man smart or dumb. Well, those faculties are failing spectacularly – nobody seems to deny this – and, unlike both the Right and Left in this era of voguish softness, I’ll use the correct descriptive term.
More importantly: they deserve it. (Here I pause to note that my venom is directed at the subject of our conversation, not at you. You are a great conversationalist and a friend with whom I’m merely discussing something and toward whom I intend to convey literally no animosity.) They deserve it because they are terrible. Truly terrible. It is not only stupid but morally indefensible to put such maundering incompetence so close to the levers of actual power. To hear a man say that he will order American soldiers to murder noncombatant women and children…and then to try to put this man in the Oval Office – this is not some light mistake, not some tolerable defect or understandable failure of judgment or sympathetic solecism. This is moral filth. I mean that: moral filth, indistinguishable in any consequent manner from the moral filth who would intentionally murder our wives and children. They deserve to be called stupid. In fact, they deserve a hell of a lot worse than that.
Great story and why do you think that they voted for him? “He’s cool he was on Jon Stewart WOW the first black President” Uh huh…
The good part about Hillary is that she has never been “cool” a day in her life. The more people see her the more they dislike her. A 75 year old hunched over bald Socialist is giving her all she can handle Those who are running around stating that she will be the next President are going to be very surprised. She has a very unmotivated base.
Funny stuff one of the commentators on the video said “maybe she misremembered, misspoke etc.” Ha ha no dunce she …LIED. It is what she does. She’s a liar and not a very good one.
I don’t disagree that he should’ve attacked Obama, but I see no problem with his attack on Trump. What was he supposed to do? Sit back and watch as Trump people voted for a such a terrible candidate (see smh’s post above). He is trying to give some sanity to this primary. If people don’t listen, ignore all reason, and still vote emotionally because their feels thinks Trump will do something it is not Romney’s fault. I’m glad some people like him are trying to bring some form of logic into the thoughts of voters.
