Wuh? 'The Donald'?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But, I’ve been following this stuff for decades. So, it’s more than opinion.

Oh. It’s MORE than an opinion. Well, why didn’t you say so?[/quote]

Well, we are all entitled to our opinion. But an opinion from someone who does not understand the political landscape (no names being mentioned) and one from someone who actually understands and has lived through multiple campaigns and understands what’s going on (no names again) is quite a difference wouldn’t you say?

[quote] In fact, he did a campaign stop near my home and I was on the GOP committee and was asked to pick him up at the air Port. He seemed like a very regular guy to me at the time, granted he was very personable. How was I to know he was going to go on to political super stardom?

So, you served as Reagan’s chauffeur once? My Pakistani cabbie today told me he drove Frank Thomas home the day he got back from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. The cabbie still didn’t know jack shit about baseball. Not to insult you, though…
[/quote]

I only mentioned it because he seemed like an ordinary guy to me at that point in time. It was a side story which was attached to a greater truth which apparently flew right over the top of your little head.

What I could have said in fewer words: You can read about the various prior candidates and that’s good. But, I have lived it and that’s quite a bit better. That was the major theme in case you missed it.

42

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists[/quote]

So: A guy on the internet, who is neither a politician nor a public figure, and who is not seeking high office (or, for that matter, office of any sort), and who never kowtows to anything PC, makes an anecdotal (i.e., weak by definition) argument without supplying one number or datum…and still manages to get it infinitely more right than did the presidential candidate in front of the entire nation.

Which is to say, again, that Donald Trump is a buffoon and an imbecile. He said something wrong (i.e., incorrect, i.e., not factually accurate) and stupid. He is a clown. That’s what the thesis was; that’s why this matters. He is trying to inflate his own ego/profile at the GOP’s expense and a bunch of the worst and dullest base voters appear to be poised to lend a helping hand. Do you really need it spelled out here? Do you understand how important Latinos are going to be in 2016, particularly if the GOP candidate is running against a woman? Do you understand that when HRC is happy, something is not going well for you politically? “Recently, a Republican candidate for president described immigrants as drug dealers, rapists and criminals.” That’s the line she’s been using. It’s a fucking gift on a silver platter. One wonders how many more she has coming.[/quote]

Bush appears to be navigating the issue of Immigration infinitely better than others. He evens speaks fluent Spanish while on the stump.

This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Bush being more “PC”…he just possesses more knowledge than ignorance on the subject.

Mufasa[/quote]

Actually Mufasa some think that Bush being able to speak fluent Spanish will go a long way in getting him the Spanish vote. While I on the other hand think that someone like Marco Rubio would be a better choice to gain that particular voting block.

What are your thoughts?

43

SO FAR…Bush comes across much more polished and comfortable. (Understandable since he is much more experienced…)

I’ve also seen Rubio become much more flustered and “thrown of his game” when challenged on a position (much like I saw with Santorum, and actually have seen more than once with Hillary).

Being on the stump certainly makes everyone more polished in their responses…but right now I see Bush with the edge.

Mufasa

44

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
SO FAR…Bush comes across much more polished and comfortable. (Understandable since he is much more experienced…)

I’ve also seen Rubio become much more flustered and “thrown of his game” when challenged on a position (much like I saw with Santorum, and actually have seen more than once with Hillary).

Being on the stump certainly makes everyone more polished in their responses…but right now I see Bush with the edge.

Mufasa

I know what you mean regarding Rubio. I’ve actually seen it a couple of times as well. But as the campaign wears on I think he will get better. As for Hillary after 23 years in the public eye I don’t understand how she can still get flustered. Although when you have as many lies to cover up as she does I suppose you have to think really fast when you’re on the spot. That of course can cause you to become flustered…Ha

Let’s face it she doesn’t have half of the quickness and style of her husband. And as a two term President he never achieved even 50% of the vote!

Hillary has an uphill climb…I’ll leave the rest out because you already know my position :slight_smile:

45

[quote]ZEB wrote:
[A towering heap of nothing.]
[/quote]

I see that you forgot to respond to the part of my post that was substantive. That is, the part concerned with the factual disagreement from which this exchange sprang (or perhaps I should say “limped,” given that a limp is achieved by way of one functional side and one [sometimes pitiably] defective one). Or is it instead the case that you did end up stretching your intellect to the point that it was, at long and costly last, capable of absorbing the meaning of those three words in conjunction…at which point you saw that there was no response available to you but a concessive one…at which further point you – being as intellectually dishonest as you are pettily averse to acknowledging your frequent and obvious errors – decided to ignore the whole thing? Probably the latter, but I’ll afford you the benefit of the doubt and reproduce what needed to be addressed (note that I have altered it slightly so as to render it even more difficult for you to misinterpret, which is not to say that I doubt your ability to overcome any difficulty you might encounter in practicing the craft of misinterpretation):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, this time a little more slowly and simply: I said that he was pretending to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants to the United States are rapists. You objected to this in some vague way and for some ambiguous reason the precise nature of which I don’t think even you understand. Nonetheless – this was our disagreement.

Now, his words, as produced now by both you and I, were:

“They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

“They’re rapists.” They are rapists. They. Are. Rapists. If you take the time, you will undoubtedly work through whatever Augean obstacle is impeding your journey to an understanding of this three-word sentence. I wish you favorable winds and happy sailing.

Afterward, you can figure out “And some, I assume, are good people.” In the end you will come to the following conclusion: Donald Trump was pretending – because even an utter idiot like Trump cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe this nonsense – to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants to the United States are rapists [and drug-smugglers and criminals, if you care to do justice to Donald’s intricate formulation]. QED.
[/quote]

As for whatever it is you’re trying to say about my “sentences”: If you’re going to go ad hominem (I won’t blame you: I certainly have, haven’t I?), please try something that has at least a small chance of working. Otherwise, no fun will be had by any.

An aside: Don’t think I’m taking offense or actually getting upset here. I enjoy taking a Hitchensian battle-axe into PWI from time to time, and you – because of the clumsy, inept, and generally objectionable way you conduct yourself hereabouts – happen to present a guilt-free target. For that, I suppose, I should thank you.

Edited.

46

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But, I’ve been following this stuff for decades. So, it’s more than opinion.

Oh. It’s MORE than an opinion. Well, why didn’t you say so?[/quote]

Well, we are all entitled to our opinion. But an opinion from someone who does not understand the political landscape (no names being mentioned) and one from someone who actually understands and has lived through multiple campaigns and understands what’s going on (no names again) is quite a difference wouldn’t you say?

[/quote]

Assuming that Dr. Pangloss isn’t old enough to have solid political perspective AND “does not understand the political landscape” while you also simply understand it better is an arrogant fucking assumption ZEB. Oh I know, I know “no names mentioned” so you have plausible deniability that it’s not what you were referring to, but it’s transparent and we all know it. You’ve been harping on your experience and political memory for this whole damn thread. In fact, you did it the last two election cycles as well. Well, quit assuming experience and memory are synonymous with understanding. Not to mention that people who disagree with you you simply call “wrong” and assume they don’t have your grasp of the situation. Any intelligent and astute observer will tell you that is a dangerous method of “debate”.

And don’t defend Trump. He’s a blowhard and you know it. He may have business sense, but that does not make a good statesman. So what, even if he didn’t call illegal immigrants rapists, so what? Let’s say he got that statement right–exactly right–he STILL handed a political baseball bat to his opponents. That right there should be an immediate disqualifier because it’s a tactical blunder.

You’re better than this. Let’s get on to the issues shall we?

47

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dave1791 wrote:
Career politicians and lawyers have done a less than stellar job of running the country in recent memory. Could a businessman do any worse? Is something different worth a try? Someone who has proven he knows how to make tough choices, balance budgets, make a profit, etc.[/quote]

Stop making sense![/quote]

Whatever. Trump ran businesses that have declared bankruptcy a minimum of four times. He’s good at making headlines and money for himself. Not so good at balancing budgets and making a profit. I wonder how many creditors and other stakeholders wish they never did business with him.

Something different might be worth a try, but Donald Trump representing the US as our head of state is not the answer. His multiple bankruptcies, shitty men’s wear line, and reality TV shows aren’t impressive to me; and I don’t care how much money he made from those endeavors. Being a good businessman is more than just becoming rich.

In any case, Trump isn’t a serious candidate. He does well with keeping his name top of mind and using that notoriety to accumulate more money. He’s all about himself and doesn’t even attempt to disguise it. Celebrating Donald Trump’s successes is just an indication your worldview is all about wealth accumulation by any legal means necessary.

He’s also incredibly toxic to the Republican brand and is screwing over the rest of the candidates. Not that he cares because I suspect he knows exactly what he’s doing, and that’s do whatever it takes to make more money for himself.

48

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you would do well to stop calling people who are roughly 10 times smarter and how many times richer (YIKES) than you buffoons and babblers. I mean really…do you think you could stand up to Donald Trump in a one on one debate?

With that said that doesn’t mean that Trump can stand up to the rest of the GOP field does it?

The fun part is seeing if he can, right?

[/quote]

So now it’s inappropriate to criticize anyone who has accumulated more wealth than you? You know the Clinton’s are pretty damned rich. Hilary is almost certainly richer than anyone on this board so I guess no one is allowed to criticize her.

His ability to win a debate over T-Nation posters doesn’t mean shit. His whole game is to appear outrageous to get people talking about him.

I guess it can be entertaining to see if he can stand up to the rest of the GOP field. But if you support the GOP, you should be aware of how damaging Trump’s antics are to the party. He is not doing the GOP any favors.

49

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you would do well to stop calling people who are roughly 10 times smarter and how many times richer (YIKES) than you buffoons and babblers. I mean really…do you think you could stand up to Donald Trump in a one on one debate?

With that said that doesn’t mean that Trump can stand up to the rest of the GOP field does it?

The fun part is seeing if he can, right?

[/quote]

So now it’s inappropriate to criticize anyone who has accumulated more wealth than you?[/quote]

Indeed – a truly humiliating sentiment to have expressed. Stupid from every angle, including the Clinton one by which you approached it. (Exchange Clinton with Soros, Obama, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, etc. – it doesn’t matter.)

As an aside, this impulse to praise and admire a silver-spoon-suckling inheritor of his rich daddy’s real estate empire who still, somehow, ended up a reality-TV D-lister – it’s pathetic in the literal sense of the term.

[quote]
His ability to win a debate over T-Nation posters doesn’t mean shit. His whole game is to appear outrageous to get people talking about him.[/quote]

Not to mention that one could count on a single hand (with fingers to spare) the number of regular and semi-regular PWI posters with whom Trump could engage in argument and come away in one piece. Most would undo him without effort and to gruesomely funny effect.

50

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Who gives a fuck if Trump called a bunch of illegal Mexicans “rapists”? I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists. There are “Spanish speaking” neighborhoods in Arlington, Fairfax and PW county that any sane, single woman alone would avoid. Why? BECAUSE SHE WOULD LIKELY BE RAPED… MS 13 is a very strong presence in my old neighborhood. Guess how they initiate female members? THEY RAPE THEM… But that’s not popular to say…

This is just another SENTENCE that the MSLM are repeating over and over because it fits their PC agenda.

I’m no Trump supporter - I’m just a guy who lives in Northern Virginia who has to deal with a bunch of illegal Spanish speaking immigrants on a daily basis. And I can tell you that they are bringing our country down. Sucking up valuable resources, clogging our roads causing non-insured accidents and hit and runs, driving down wages and increasing the crime in our neighborhoods (including rape).

So who gives a fuck what Trump says about a non-voting block of ILLEGAL immigrants? Why are we getting our panties in a twist about it? Fuck them, they should be deported and made to enter the country LEGALLY, and if they have to wait, they have to wait. That’s the LAW…[/quote]

You can support efforts to eliminate or reduce illegal immigration without sounding like such a dipshit like Trump. Trump isn’t doing “real talk” he’s doing “How can I get myself some attention? - talk”. You really think Trump gives a shit about your troubles in NoVa?

I work in Fairfax and live in DC. Used to live in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood which has a strong Salvadorian presence. Somehow I manage to stay alive. I’m not even trying to trivialize your concerns because I think it’s ridiculous that there’s even an argument about border security (as in secure borders shouldn’t even be a question).

But when a candidate with Trump’s media presence says the type of shit he said during his announcement speech it’s damaging to both his party and legitimate arguments for stronger enforcement of immigration law. He has enough experience and smarts to come up with better words to convey his message. This was his announcement, presumably planned in advance and practiced. Not some slip-up or mistake.

You bitch about the MSLM and its agenda. Guess who just purposely fed the MSLM its chicken dinner? He knew exactly the reaction he wanted and he got it. B/c he doesn’t give a shit about you or your negative experiences with illegal immigrants in NoVa. He cares about himself and what he can do to stay relevant so he can make money. Your concerns have just been marginalized even further as a result of Trump. He’s not waking anyone up with his words, he’s just making it harder to have a legit discussion about it.

He’s clearly not fit to be a head of state if he doesn’t even care to deliver his announcement speech with class. He’s not running for President of a homeowners association.

51

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Assuming that Dr. Pangloss isn’t old enough to have solid political perspective AND “does not understand the political landscape” while you also simply understand it better is an arrogant fucking assumption ZEB[/quote]

Think so? I read those types of opinions on these boards all the time. Must be plenty of arrogance to go around. Like the arrogant that think simply reading names off the Internet is as good as having watched that same history unfold. Arrogant? Indeed!

And furthermore I am not denying it. Why would I want to deny it? When someone says that the 2016 field is inferior to the 1980 field they either don’t understand politics, or they’re a lefty with an agenda. Of course there is a third choice they could be stupid…but I have not gone there yet.

But, yea it’s a difference of opinion but isn’t that pretty much what all these debates are about?

No, just part of the thread when it was needed.

Secondly, you better start skipping over my posts because I have a lot more to say about the 2016 race and I think your head might explode if you keep reading.

Oh man you have to keep up. I’ve been doing it for much more than the last two election cycles. And…I’m going to keep on doing it. Now what?

Dang I knew there was something that I had forgotten. I have understanding as well :slight_smile:

You make a good point my friend. When someone disagrees with me we are both right! Huh?

Here’s a clue (and you need one badly)

The very best political debates are usually over opinion and they are sometimes heated. Those messy facts are usually too hard to refute. Of course numbers can be twisted and turned to suit someone’s need. But over all politics is all about opinion.

But I know you know this and you’re just having a bad day.

You are telling me not to have a different opinion about Trump? Oh my that is very high and mighty of you isn’t it. How arrogant! Are you saying that because you don’t like him I shouldn’t either? So, you are in essence saying my opinion is wrong? Didn’t you just tell me not to do that?

Okay…I’ll move on because again you’re just having a bad day.

Did I defend Trump purely or did I simply say that he was correct regarding his brash statement? And I also said that he would be better than Obama, but heck I think the man who comes to collect my garbage every Friday would do less harm to the US than Obama. Pay attention now your role as message board police officer is in jeopardy if you keep this up.

One more thing officer…

The thread was begun to (in part) question Trumps experience. Which my retort was he has far greater experience than Obama had when he was elected President. Yet, you are saying in your previous statement that you don’t want me defending Trump. Is this supposed to be a pile on Trump thread? You see…no one told me that. Hey, I would have gone along with it if the thread was called “Pile on Trump Here”.

That happens to be your opinion. But this time I agree with you.

Blowhard? absolutely!

So, I am not allowed to defend a blowhards certain comments? Again,

We are talking about politicians are we not? Here’s a news flash, being a blowhard is almost a prerequisite. Of course, a thieving liar in Hillary’s case is more accurate.

And someone like Hillary Clinton has supposedly been a “statesman” which makes her right for the Presidency? I know you are not saying that, but she is one example. Since when does a perfect statesman make a perfect President? Were Harry Truman and Teddy Roosevelt Statesman? I could point out more examples, but my solid understanding of the history of the Presidency only seems to make you mad so I will leave it at those two.

Also…

does being a medical doctor prepare you to be President? Does serving only two years in the Senate (Obama) prepare you for the Presidency. How about being a former General? I guess there are plenty of backgrounds that can prepare you for being President that do not include actually running for a prior office. Any number of things including being a blowhard billionaire can prepare you for the Presidency.

One example I remember…oh dang…I am about to recall an election from 23 years ago. I can’t remember is this allowed? Are we only supposed to read about the past? If we are old enough to have lived it does that count against us? Should I not use the example of Ross Perot that I lived through? Hey…I’m going to do it anyway. Perot won about 19% of the vote and many believe kept George H. W. Bush from a second term?

He was almost as big a blowhard as Trump, (I can say that because I remember him well). He had a big mouth and an attitude a mile long. But he also had plenty of solid experience, was very successful and quite honestly would have made a good President in my judgment which I understand you don’t respect because how can anyone who you deem arrogant also be correct? But if I read about Perot and told you about him that would be better right? Come on officer there must be a ruling here.

Did I say Trump had political acumen? Nope. Look back over my posts. I simply said that he told the truth regarding that one statement. If you are going to play officer of T Nation get it right!

I guess that depends on why he’s running right? Do you honestly think that he’s running to win the Presidency? If you do you’re naïve. Oops, I’m not supposed to make those sorts of claims am I? That might cause you to call me arrogant. Yet, there you sit thinking that Donald Trump is taking this as seriously as you are. And I am here smiling (and snickering) about it.

Well keep reading and I’ll try to give you MY OPINION on why he’s running. You may have a different opinion and we can debate back and forth. HEY that’s what I was doing in my other posts and you didn’t like it much-

Trump is running for two reasons:

  1. To bring more attention to himself which strokes his gigantic ego. Some of these folks really like seeing their name in print or their face on TV.

  2. To sell more soap as they say. In other words, one more reality show will pop up because he is as relevant as he’s ever been. How about “Trump The Run For President” behind the scenes. But of course it could be about anything right? He’s a media whore, you knew that didn’t you? Yes…I’m sure you did.

You get the idea yet? Trump is smart enough to know that he’s never going to be elected President. But many on this board (not talking about you…nope) are not quite up to speed with that fact. So they argue endlessly about whether he would make a good President…YIKES.

And I pray you are better than this recent post. Now go hand in your Internet Police Officer badge and computer. As Trump would say “YOU’RE FIRED”

LOL, I had to get that in there somewhere. Give me some points for that man!

[quote]Let’s get on to the issues shall we?
[/quote]

There is no issue here only opinions and those are what we debate.

52

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

I guess it can be entertaining to see if he can stand up to the rest of the GOP field. [/quote]

I’m with you on that one.

53

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

As an aside, this impulse to praise and admire a silver-spoon-suckling inheritor of his rich daddy’s real estate empire who still, somehow, ended up a reality-TV D-lister – it’s pathetic in the literal sense of the term.[/quote]

Let’s get it right.

Actors get paid plenty of bucks to …well just act. I never said any of them were bright. However, I bet many are. But. that’s another topic.

Trump on the other hand inherited something like 20 or 30 million and turned it into billions. I think we can agree that is not an easy task.

That takes plenty of skill, and intelligence and many other attributes.

Trump is many things but stupid isn’t one of them.

54

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists[/quote]

So: A guy on the internet, who is neither a politician nor a public figure, and who is not seeking high office (or, for that matter, office of any sort), and who never kowtows to anything PC, makes an anecdotal (i.e., weak by definition) argument without supplying one number or datum…and still manages to get it infinitely more right than did the presidential candidate in front of the entire nation.

Which is to say, again, that Donald Trump is a buffoon and an imbecile. He said something wrong (i.e., incorrect, i.e., not factually accurate) and stupid. He is a clown. That’s what the thesis was; that’s why this matters. He is trying to inflate his own ego/profile at the GOP’s expense and a bunch of the worst and dullest base voters appear to be poised to lend a helping hand. Do you really need it spelled out here? Do you understand how important Latinos are going to be in 2016, particularly if the GOP candidate is running against a woman? Do you understand that when HRC is happy, something is not going well for you politically? “Recently, a Republican candidate for president described immigrants as drug dealers, rapists and criminals.” That’s the line she’s been using. It’s a fucking gift on a silver platter. One wonders how many more she has coming.[/quote]

Bush appears to be navigating the issue of Immigration infinitely better than others. He evens speaks fluent Spanish while on the stump.

This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Bush being more “PC”…he just possesses more knowledge than ignorance on the subject.

Mufasa[/quote]

Actually Mufasa some think that Bush being able to speak fluent Spanish will go a long way in getting him the Spanish vote. While I on the other hand think that someone like Marco Rubio would be a better choice to gain that particular voting block.

What are your thoughts?
[/quote]

Rubio will never get the nomination because Latinos will not vote for him. A Latino against immigration and he is Cuban.

55

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Indeed – a truly humiliating sentiment to have expressed. Stupid from every angle, including the Clinton one by which you approached it. (Exchange Clinton with Soros, Obama, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, etc. – it doesn’t matter.)

As an aside, this impulse to praise and admire a silver-spoon-suckling inheritor of his rich daddy’s real estate empire who still, somehow, ended up a reality-TV D-lister – it’s pathetic in the literal sense of the term.
[/quote]

It actually read an awful lot like how aristocrats and the social elites of the 17-19th century argued for their rightful dominance over society.

56

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

He’s clearly not fit to be a head of state if he doesn’t even care to deliver his announcement speech with class. He’s not running for President of a homeowners association.[/quote]

I personally believe that Donald Trump is a secret Democrat agent.

57

Trump vs Biden, the lulz would be epic.

58

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

He’s clearly not fit to be a head of state if he doesn’t even care to deliver his announcement speech with class. He’s not running for President of a homeowners association.[/quote]

I personally believe that Donald Trump is a secret Democrat agent.[/quote]

I felt the same way back in '08 about Sarah Palin.

59

A lot words and no substance ZEB. Your bloviation doesn’t impress me. I’ve watched you do this since the 2004 election on this board. You strawmanned the shit out of any case I chose to make and you put words in my mouth presupposing my opinions to boot. Not accurate, not closely reasoned, and not classy.

If YOU had half the memory you like to brag you have you would remember years past where I generally agreed with the concepts you conveyed in many political threads if not the foolhardy and brash way you said them. Clearly your memory is faltering along with your abilty to analyse a person’s opinion.

That or you’re just too fucking lazy to do it.