You don’t understand the issue of asking a question for which you have no answer? The point is simply, what does any politician actually stand for? The reaction on the left to Trump has been to what they appear to perceive as a far right threat to democracy. He’s been repeatedly referred to as a fascist, compared to Hitler, called racist, had his impeachment called for the night of the election, and repeatedly threatened with assassination. None of that is rational, thoughtful, or comes from the mouths of anything nearing intelligence. His major misdeeds on race seem to be desiring to shut off illegal immigration from Mexico and putting into place a limitation on immigration from majority Muslim countries that either do not cooperate with the US on background checks or lack the ability to do so. Is there room to debate these issues? Certainly. Do I see rational people debating? Certainly not. You seem to need to argue against ideology because that is what drives you without seeing that there are people who are more national interest driven than ideologically driven. I couldn’t give two shits for religion, or conservative or libertarian ideology. What I want is open debate and politicians who will consider new information and take new approaches on things that are not working. For me Trump was the better of two choices. Yet, you seem hell bent on needing to know what I think he stands for. As if that wins a complex debate, or more what I would like to see, discussion. That speaks volumes about you. So yes, I’m laughing at you. And frankly, this is far more of a response than that retarded question deserves, but he seems to “stand” for rethinking ideologically driven status quo and leading based on national interests. Is he my perfect pick or my boy, and am I wearing a “I’m with him shirt” or a giant pink cock on my head? Yea, no.
That said, if there is to be a discussion of issues rather than a silly back and forth then I’m interested. I rarely see that though in Internet forums, or anywhere else these days. Too many have replaced education and thought with indoctrination and ideology. I don’t think most of humanity can function without religion or strongly held ideology. For that reason, I’m starting to think psychology would have been a very interesting alternative to law and finance. But I digress. And you never answered my question while feeling smug that laughed at yours.
The point of asking the question was to see what you thought. I have no idea why it took you so long to answer or why you decided to ignore it and ask me a question. I’m over it though and don’t really care to respond to the things you think about me that are wrong.
Nah I’m just over it. It took you about twenty posts of deflection to finally answer the question. Your anger is just a bunch of personal attacks and that’s hardly someone who is interested in an actual debate.
No anger. Just amusement. At one point you seemed to “get it” (when you said HRC wasn’t all that great) and then went off as to why I wasn’t answering the question (seeming to imply that you couldn’t defend HRC but that I needed to defend Trump). I find that rhetorical game off putting, and you didn’t attempt to engage so much as harp on a single question. I’m left with the impression that you don’t have much of an education or are ideologically driven, or both. Since you are “over it” its no big deal.
I have an education, I am questioning yours. I asked the question because I was genuinely curious what you thought. You didn’t answer it and wanted me to answer a question instead. It’s typical of Trump supporters to deflect and try to talk about anything other than him. Why you think asking that question means I need to talk about Hilary before you respond is beyond me.
I don’t support Trump and I didn’t support Clinton although you seem to think anyone criticizing him must be a far left person.
I messed up though. I asked a question because I was wondering what you thought and instead I got deflections and personal attacks because you didn’t want to answer it. I know better now. I won’t waste my time in the future.
Yawn. I answered your question, you tell me are “over it”’ and yet you continue to respond and call me a “typical Trump supporter.” Let’s change approaches. I have two graduate degrees in the areas I referenced above from a solid (but not ivy) institution, and have worked for and with ivy graduates most of my career. That’s meant to answer you in that area, not get into a degree war. That said, I don’t wish to engage with anyone without an education. I do find that many of my colleagues over the years have bought hook line and sinker into progressive ideology without thinking much as to why. Some have been great discussion partners, others not so much. I find that ideology is often like religion, it’s taken on more belief than reflection.
So you have higher education degrees like I do but feel the need to call someone else a retard and make all sorts of personal attacks? Ok. You keep telling everyone how smart you are and what you have so maybe people will think about that instead of you calling someone a retard and ignoring questions.
You are hung up on typical trump supporter. Maybe you aren’t one who knows. Like them though the first thing you did when asked a question was to talk about HRC or Obama.
Actually I addressed it what 12 hours before you addressed mine when I asked the question first.
No one was talking about HRC and unlike you I never said anything positive about her to spark a discussion on her. Read the thread you said you enjoyed his policies and I said they changed all the time so I asked what you thought Trump thought about the role of government.
No one talked about the voting choice. No one talked about Clinton. I just asked you what you thought Trump thought about the role of government. Not who should people have voted for.
Go up and read the initial exchange and realize that no she was not relevant to the discussion UNTIL you tried to make that the discussion
That’s not what you asked. You asked what I thought Trump “stood for.” I think that’s a silly question. To be completely honest, I also think a question regarding the “role of government,” while a slightly better question, also belies a desire to engage in a philosophical discussion. I’m at a point in my thinking where I think the questions that need to start being asked are (1) in what areas does the free market work and in what areas does it not? (2) why do we feel the United States is responsible for world security? (3) at what point will deficit spending lead to disaster and how much deficit spending is prudent and when? There are many others that could be added. 'm not saying I have answers to these questions, or even all the right questions. My expertise is in very limited areas and I have to rely on experts in economics and psychology ot a large degree. The “Trump supporter” vs. “Hilary supporter” dichotomy bores the ever loving hell out of me, and I think it’s rather dumb.
I asked both, it was a continuation of thoughts. For someone who is bored by Trump vs Hilary that is exactly where you took it immediately. You took it there you have brought up the choice between the two etc. No one else did that but you man.
Instead of answering a question I posed you steered the discussion towards Clinton and tried to make it about Trump vs her.
No one did that but you. If you are tired of that it’s certainly what you made the thread into
You still don’t quite get why I responded with the question of what HRC stands for even after I explained it? No big deal. You’re what I thought you were. Later. Shopping and workout to do.
