Why is it that when I see the words “I’m not here to argue”, they are said by someone that wants to post an opinion they know will be controversial but they have no intention of listening to anybody else?
“I’ve said what I’ve got to say-Conversation’s over!”
Cute. Which democratic politicians are backing that up?
We see this difference again and again. The democrats tend to weed the crazy out of their elected leaders. The republicans don’t. Who was the last democratic congressman to say something as certifiably anti-science as Paul Broun’s statement that evolution, embryology, and the big bang are “lies from the pit of hell”? Paul Broun, I must remind you, is a member of the House Science Committee. The republicans appointed James Inhofe, who thought bringing a fucking snowball into congress was a good argument against global warming, as the head of the senate environmental committee.
You could try calling the democrats “ignorant” or “deplorable” and say it’s the same, but once again you run into the little eensy-weensy problem that we didn’t nominate and elect Donald Trump to the highest office of the land!
I knew what we would get under Hillary. Eight years of experience as a U.S. Senator and four years as Secretary of State. I’ll take that over a maverick outsider any day. And she wouldn’t have even needed to tour the White House. 
No…From your own source (bolding added):
Budget Player Cadet already explained to you the distinction between the party that marginalizes the anti-science views in their party and the party that puts them in leadership roles, including now the Presidency.
If you’re lucky, Donald Trump will ban apostrophes, because they’re so hard to use.
You are witnessing-- i.e., professing something without being willing to engage in a debate. In that case, GD is the right place. It’s usually religious witnessing, but we do get political witnessing once in awhile.
As well as that Oxford comma, I would imagine! A plain old American wing-tip comma, in black, ought to be enough for any right-thinking American!
If you are positing that the President-Elect is a Republican I’d wait a while …
My favorite line in this piece https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/post-election-college-paper-grading-rubric is “Uses elitist punctuation like the semicolon.”
I could have worded things a lot better. I had a few drinks. It’s been a high stress week.
Wasn’t here to kick the hornets nest. And I damn sure wasn’t here to talk politics with the hornets when they came out either.
Not the time or place for the thought I wanted to get across.
Oh but seriously, as the great Glenn Beck says…
Just kidding. Mellow out folks I’m pretty sure the reeducation camps were never in play.
Only people on one side of this debate ever bring up “reeducation camps”.
Care to guess which side that might be?
If you read the more reasonable responses to you in this thread (and there really are some), it’s from people who are asking if you’d be willing to articulate what you’d initially stated:
You said that you gambled that Trump would be better for you and your family. What about him or his stated plans led you to decide that?
You also said that you were certain of what you would get from Clinton. What, exactly, was that?
See, when you make huge sweeping generalizations like that, you are usually going to be wrong as you are here.
Anyway I am what I say I am. I’m done. God bless.
That’s nice.
For future reference, btw, “'Cause I say so”, or words that add up to that basic premise are not very effective around these parts.
Do you mind if I direct you to the wiki page on the bare assertion fallacy? I think that is the flaw in your posting in this thread, and what everyone is really complaining about.
To be fair, you said, “I did what I felt was best for me and my family.” (bolding mine) One can’t really argue with feelings, and I have come to the conclusion that Trump won by appealing to pathos rather than logos, and you have helped to confirm that opinion, so thank you for that.
OTOH, you said that “we knew exactly what we would get under HC.” (bolding mine again) The phrase “we knew” implies some kind of factual, verifiable basis for the statement. Asking, “how did you know?” and “What exactly would we get under HC?” isn’t really arguing- we just want to know specifically what your point is.
So I join the chorus of posters asking you to clarify your position. What, in your opinion, would we have gotten under HC? How did you know that? And if you don’t mind saying a few words about why, as a Trump supporter, you think that a Trump administration is best for you and your family, I’d appreciate it.
I promise I won’t argue, I just want to understand where you are coming from. Welcome to the SDMB!
Your best interest was never Hillary’s concern either. If you believe otherwise you’re as gullible as you believe Trump voters to be.
That being the case, why not choose the one not fueling people’s fears and bigotry?
Oh, so now something is wrong with fear and bigotry!
Why pick either? But libs fears are fantastically and hilariously overwrought and words like “bigotry” are thrown around so much it undergone semantic bleaching.