Trump just won

[Deepak]

Yeah, because his track record of achieving success is simply unparalleled. Do you also think the world is flat?

If you can join a party you've not belong to before; say you'll be its nominee for President; withstand constant attacks from within and without that party to nonetheless beat everyone else; come back repeatedly from nearly everyone saying you'll gonna fail at every stage; beat the media-anointed first woman president in an election where pretty much every poll says you'll lose; and then turn Wisconsin and Michigan red for the first time since Reagan; that would be unparalleled.

You'd have us believe that campaigning is governance? As others mentioned he won the vote as distorted by the electoral college, not overall.

Do you think he'll have the ability to negotiate with foreign leaders, and deal with global conflicts because he was able to win a plebiscite? Or will he be calling people sons of whores with the biggest military in the world behind him?

How long do you think it will take for him to renege on the Washington Treaty because he forgot Estonia was a signatory, or he thought they didn't make their commitment even though they did? Because we all know he doesn't do his homework.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump doesn't know the first thing about helping America even if he cared to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fast]

That's not accurate. They got conned, and he is mistaken about some things, but he's going to help, and the positives will outweigh the negatives. If I want to help you but can't unless i'm in a position to, then there's no need to con anyone unless it's necessary for being in the position to help.

Deception through portrayed perception has the unfortunate effect of misleading even the exceptionally bright. Don't let his ignorance undermine your judgement. He will ultimately prevail as being an agent for bringing about snowballing change amidst stuck in the mud gridlock. It's not going to look pretty, and if you rely on reason alone to justify a change in opinion, you're gonna have to step back and consider the possibility that while some things are just as they appear, some things beneath the rock are not what you might otherwise expect to find when you turn it over.

It's not unreasonable to not adapt or modify your judgement until new evidence is clearly in sight, but it's not luck nor faith alone (and so not just some lucky guess) of those extreme few that can (while embracing reason) see through the fog that allows for your position to be mistaken.

If Trump was really interested in helping the American people, he wouldn't still have his clothes line being made in Thailand and China.

Call me crazy but somehow that smacks of insincerity.

Maybe when it's the smart thing to do (for others he'll be helping), he will.

ETA: Crazy

 

[fast]

Trump doesn't know the first thing about helping America even if he cared to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's probably quite a few things he doesn't know how to do. What's your point? You think not knowing how to do something is an insurmountable barrier to success? He'll put things in place to produce results, and if that doesn't include learning, then it'll include bringing others into the fold who know, and if not, he'll have others learn. Making things happen doesn't necessitate having current knowledge.

By the way, cries of hypocrisy is a tell-tale sign of short-sidedness.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Trump doesn't know the first thing about helping America even if he cared to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's probably quite a few things he doesn't know how to do. What's your point? You think not knowing how to do something is an insurmountable barrier to success? He'll put things in place to produce results, and if that doesn't include learning, then it'll include bringing others into the fold who know, and if not, he'll have others learn. Making things happen doesn't necessitate having current knowledge.

By the way, cries of hypocrisy is a tell-tale sign of short-sidedness.

...short-sightedness.

/grammar nazi

 

[Juma]

Except Trump supporters aren't desperate. They're upset they're not getting their way. They're upset that they're losing their privileged position in society. They're upset that their religion no longer dominates. They're upset that their education level no longer guarantees them a steady good, paying job (it never did. Unions did that for them).

Desperate? Hardly. Whining, armchair martyrs more like.

- - - Updated - - -

He won the electoral college. The people (popular vote) did not want him.

Er, you're referring to Hillary?

Please explain how you think this fits Hillary.

So what where were you for the last few months?

Reading how you were corrected for each criticism. And here you are again, pretending your criticisms weren't already owned.

Wut? I guess, unlike you, I didn't view Hillary Clinton as an angel sent from heaven to save up from a guy who is literally Hitler. I certainly consider some Clinton supporters as gullible morons. Alot of groupthink there.

Who said I did?

I know the difference between a candidate who is 70% honest and one that's 10% honest. You apparently don't.

I know the difference between a corrupt candidate who'd continue the establishment status quo and the other, with no political corruption experience, who'd burn down that same establishment. When the spouse of a person under criminal investigation by both the FBI and DOJ is able to hold up the attorney general's plane at an airport for, what was said, just a friendly conversation, I do not feel such conduct should be ignored or rewarded. But we differ there, I guess.

If the spouse is a former president that really dont say shit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder if these people realize they're against democracy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37946231

 

[credoconsolans]

If Trump was really interested in helping the American people, he wouldn't still have his clothes line being made in Thailand and China.

Call me crazy but somehow that smacks of insincerity.

Maybe when it's the smart thing to do (for others he'll be helping), he will.

ETA: Crazy

It was always the smart thing to do for others. But he didn't care about others back then, you think he'll do it now?

 

[TSwizzle]

So I leave the office last night to go home and I'm stopped at a signal behind a newish Fiat 500, driven by a young white girl, the car has a USC license plate holder and I notice a bumper sticker, "LOVE TRUMPS HATE". I had a little chuckle to myself as I thought "Aaaawwwwww, how cute".

 

[fast]

Maybe when it's the smart thing to do (for others he'll be helping), he will.

ETA: Crazy

It was always the smart thing to do for others. But he didn't care about others back then, you think he'll do it now?

What I meant was something a bit different. My bad.

He's looking after his own best interest, and that in and of itself is not a bad thing, unless you're hurting others by doing so. I'm sure he would be excited to bring his clothing line to America, especially if that somehow helps the American people, but it's not hypocritical to want to help the American people and not do so. Hurting others and not helping is no way near one and the same. What he could do, and what he would very much like to do, is change things so that others who would do as he does would find it in their best interest to do as you suggest, and when it's in the best interest not to do as he does, and if interests would be better served in doing as you suggest, then such actions of doing as you suggest would mutually benefit the interests of the American people and his interests.

See, the overwhelming test does not surround his actions concerning the placement of his clothing lines simply because a change in approach would help America. If fundamental changes designed to help America were put in place that caused others that would currently do as he does to find it beneficial to not do as he does, then not only would it make sense for him to do as you suggest, but it would be substantially beneficial in fact to the American people ... and not just some negligible benefit of appearences.

He shouldn't want to simply give the appearance of wanting to help, nor is it sensible for him to move his clothing line until the underlying reasoning that should give him reason to do so would also be a reason for others to do so. What's needed is for him to make fundamental changes that encourage others to do as you think he should.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, because his track record of achieving success is simply unparalleled. Do you also think the world is flat?

If you can join a party you've not belong to before; say you'll be its nominee for President; withstand constant attacks from within and without that party to nonetheless beat everyone else; come back repeatedly from nearly everyone saying you'll gonna fail at every stage; beat the media-anointed first woman president in an election where pretty much every poll says you'll lose; and then turn Wisconsin and Michigan red for the first time since Reagan; that would be unparalleled.

I can certainly understand why a Trump voter would confuse winning a campaign against an unpopular candidate (who had already proven she could not win a national race) with successfully governing a country.

 

[credoconsolans]

It was always the smart thing to do for others. But he didn't care about others back then, you think he'll do it now?

What I meant was something a bit different. My bad.

He's looking after his own best interest, and that in and of itself is not a bad thing, unless you're hurting others by doing so.

And he was.

I'm sure he would be excited to bring his clothing line to America, especially if that somehow helps the American people, but it's not hypocritical to want to help the American people and not do so.

Yet he hasn't. He'd've made a great impact on his candidacy - both times he ran - if he'd moved his factories back to the US. He never did and he's had years to do so now. Since it still profits him to keep them where they're at, and their location didn't hurt him get into the highest position of government, there is absolutely no incentive for him to do so now.

It is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy to SAY you want to help the American people, then not lift a finger to do so.

His supporters were too dim to connect the VERY OBVIOUS dots.

Hurting others and not helping is no way near one and the same.

Obviously they're related. If someone asks you for help and you don't offer it, you ARE hurting them.

What he could do, and what he would very much like to do, is change things so that others who would do as he does

He's had years to do this and didn't. He has no incentive to do it now.

He shouldn't want to simply give the appearance of wanting to help, nor is it sensible for him to move his clothing line until the underlying reasoning that should give him reason to do so would also be a reason for others to do so. What's needed is for him to make fundamental changes that encourage others to do as you think he should.

It's not 'appearance'. It would DEFINITELY help American people by bringing jobs back to the US. He hasn't done it before he's not going to do it now.

 

[fast]

If someone asks you for help and you don't offer it, you ARE hurting them.

This isn't the only inaccurate statement you've made, but it's the one I'll address right now. Are you out of your tree?

 

[skepticalbip]

If someone asks you for help and you don't offer it, you ARE hurting them.

This isn't the only inaccurate statement you've made, but it's the one I'll address right now. Are you out of your tree?

Hey, the other day I asked this stranger to let me borrow their car for a few days and they didn't offer it. I can tell you, that hurt.

 

[credoconsolans]

If someone asks you for help and you don't offer it, you ARE hurting them.

This isn't the only inaccurate statement you've made, but it's the one I'll address right now. Are you out of your tree?

Yes I am serious.

Someone needs a ride to get surgery done and you don't offer it to them when you can, yes, you are hurting them.

Did you think you weren't?

Someone desperately needs money and they ask you for help and you don't offer it, yes, you are hurting them.

I pretty much think that's commonsense.

 

[fast]

This isn't the only inaccurate statement you've made, but it's the one I'll address right now. Are you out of your tree?

Hey, the other day I asked this stranger to let me borrow their car for a few days and they didn't offer it. I can tell you, that hurt.

Lol, I see the equivocation, but you can't seriously think what he just referred to as common sense is in any way correct.

If a child is drowning in a one foot deep nearby pool and I'm the only one who can immediately help, even without endangering myself, then not only am I not helping when I choose to walk away without lifting a finger, I am also hurting that child, but that is only if I caused the situation.

On the other hand, you might find it hurtful (notice the equivocation) if I don't help when I easily can, but if I done nothing to cause the predicament for the child's situation and choose to walk right on by, then although it's true that I have not helped when I easily could, it is patently false that I have hurt the child.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I believe that wrongdoing take the form of commission, and never the form of omission.

For instance, the drowning child. So very tragic. Never forget the news story of the man who didn't stop to help a toddler who was wandering too close to a creek bed because he was rightly concerned about pedophilia hysteria.

source

 

[skepticalbip]

Hey, the other day I asked this stranger to let me borrow their car for a few days and they didn't offer it. I can tell you, that hurt.

Lol, I see the equivocation, but you can't seriously think what he just referred to as common sense is in any way correct.
.

That was intended as humor - as weak as it was. But yes, I'm pretty sure that use of the word, "hurt", wasn't what he intended. However, I'm not really sure of exactly what he did mean, he seemed quite vague. Did he mean that someone's inaction didn't relieve someone's distress (therefore the inaction was "evil"), that the inaction caused distress, or that the inaction actually caused bodily harm? ...

But then maybe he really did include "hurting" someone's feelings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn't the only inaccurate statement you've made, but it's the one I'll address right now. Are you out of your tree?

Yes I am serious.

Someone needs a ride to get surgery done and you don't offer it to them when you can, yes, you are hurting them.

Did you think you weren't?

Someone desperately needs money and they ask you for help and you don't offer it, yes, you are hurting them.

I pretty much think that's commonsense.

No. You fail to understand the difference between fail to help and hurt. If you refuse to help they are in no worse position than before they asked for your help, you have not harmed them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe that wrongdoing take the form of commission, and never the form of omission.

For instance, the drowning child. So very tragic. Never forget the news story of the man who didn't stop to help a toddler who was wandering too close to a creek bed because he was rightly concerned about pedophilia hysteria.

source

What's even worse is the other case mentioned in that article. A guy is on the sex offender registry for grabbing the arm of a 14 year old girl he almost hit and lecturing her about watching out for traffic. The judge and jury agree he did nothing sexual but it doesn't matter.