Here is the context of Obama’s “guns and religion” comment:
Frankly, it empathetic. More so than the usual nonsense politicians of both parties sell when they campaign in the downtrodden areas of the rust belt.
The lesson learned is to flat out lie and promise crazy shit, like Trump did, and you’re golden. So while they’re clinging to guns, bibles and copies of The Turner Diaries, they also enjoy dining on giant plates of steaming horseshit.
I’ll de-straw it by saying it myself.
Trump doesn’t understand politics.
Telling people “the only reason you believe the things you do is because you’re bitter” is not empathetic.
Agreed. But, what does that have to do with anything?
That’s what Obama was saying in his “guns or religion” statement.
Grin! Okay, that’s fair. I don’t think Trump understands much of anything, actually, especially etiquette. A more ill-mannered politician, I do not think I have ever seen. He may or may not understand politics, but he absolutely does not understand what it means to be politic.
We know why: it’s because Clinton’s voters lived in the wrong states. Had 2% of the Californians who voted for Clinton decided to move to Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania, Trump would suffered a terrible defeat.
Our system is insane.
Governing: “Conducting the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people)”
GOVERNING
GOVERNING
I did not say Trump does not understand politics, or how to win an election. He does not understand how TO GOVERN.
My comment was not long. It was not hard to understand.
anything approaching is just a Right Wing Lie and “fake news”.
You’re right in that he didn’t have a unique insight, but he was the only one (outside of Bernie Sanders) who actually made an effort to reach out the disaffected and presented solutions, whether you agree with them or not, aimed at benefitting hose people who believe they’ve been left out and behind and/or those who have been hurt by Obama’s policies.
To say he was “lucky” is incorrect.
I don’t believe his grasp of what’s “going on” is weak.
He’s right to point out that many of the more recent trade deals, while they’ve had positive effects, have also harmed middle America and shipped thousands of jobs overseas.
He’s right in pointing out that our Syrian strategy is a hot mess, to put it mildly, and that we shouldn’t be supporting the “moderate” rebels (who will inevitably turn around and use the funding, weapons and training we’re providing them in fighting us at a later date).
He’s right in pointing out that Russia isn’t our enemy. They’re not our allies, certainly, but as of right now we should be trying to work towards a resolution in Syria instead of playing a game of one upsmanship.
He’s right to point out that our borders should be secured and that we need to ensure that everyone coming into the US is vetted properly.
He’s right to call Islamic terrorism what it is.
He’s right in pointing out that we don’t need to be “world police”. We’re spending money protecting other countries who refuse to protect themselves. How does that make sense, and how does that benefit us?
He’s right in pointing out that the Iran deal is idiotic. Iran has said on multiple occasions that they will nuke Israel given the chance. Oh, and they still hate us. Why are we making it easier for them to procure nuclear weapons?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
FP said Trump has no experience with politics. That’s what I was responding to.
Why don’t you actually read what I quote and respond to?
That may be true, but even if so it’s not because he had the correct understanding that what he did would work. It just happened to work.
It’s like a manager who decides to send up a .200 hitter to pinch-hit for a .300 hitter and the guy gets a hit. It doesn’t prove that the decision was the right one, just that sometimes even a .200 hitter gets a hit.
All these are complex issues, with nuances and details on every side of the issue. There are people who understand these things a lot better and in much more detail than Trump on either side of the issues. Even if you agree with Trump on all these issues, that doesn’t mean that he has a genuine understanding of these issues.
You could poll certified morons on any of these issues and he’ll say something that a lot of intelligent people will also agree with and can make a much better case for. That doesn’t reflect on the moron’s understanding of the issue.
I think you may be misinterpreting what Democrats in general mean by calling Trump “unqualified”. Speaking for myself, I certainly don’t mean merely “inexperienced” when I describe Trump as “unqualified”. I would have described Obama in 2008 as “inexperienced”, at least for somebody seeking the highest office in the land, but not necessarily “unqualified”.
What I mean when I say that Trump is “unqualified” for the Presidency is not only that he has no experience whatsoever with holding political office, but also that he is ignorant, shallow, self-obsessed, inattentive, vindictive, petty, ill-informed, selfish, incapable of taking criticism, belligerent, uncouth, pathologically dishonest, and fundamentally uninterested in any objectives other than his personal wealth and fame. IMO, the combination of those characteristics is what disqualifies him from being a competent Chief Executive, not just the fact that he’s a total noob as an office-holder.
I don’t in the least mean to suggest, however, that Trump is in any way legally ineligible for the Presidency or not legitimately entitled to assume the office based on his electoral victory. If I meant to call him “ineligible” or “illegitimate”, I would say “ineligible” or “illegitimate”.
[QUOTE=Omg a Black Conservative]
Trump isn’t even in office yet, and he’s shown more willingness to compromise, try to reach across the isle and sit down with people who disagree with him
[/quote]
:dubious: We’re talking about the same guy here? President-elect Donald Trump? The guy who denounced a mainstream media organization as “fake news” and vindictively refused even to take a question from its representative because it had reported on various high-ranking politicians’ being briefed on a sensationally critical but unsubstantiated report?
Compromise with people who disagree with him? Trump? Yeah, no.
In the first place, we don’t actually know how rich Trump is, because he won’t release his tax returns. In the second place, as has been frequently noted, it doesn’t actually take much in the way of effort or talent to become a billionaire if you inherit $40 million before you’re 40.
I don’t agree with this.
These various analyses purport to show that Trump could have achieved the same returns by investing in an index fund. Even assuming that that’s true (and ISTM it ignores all Trump’s spending over the years), it doesn’t mean what you suggest. Because the guys who run the companies that comprise the various index funds are not idiots, and they’re generally running these companies because they’re much above average at running companies. So if Trump could match what they’re doing, then he has a track record at being successful in business.
The legitimate context of these arguments is Trump’s suggestion that he’s some sort of great business genius who will put his Great Brain to work at solving the country’s problems. (But that’s silly anyway.) But if you’re trying to say that Trump is an incompetent idiot at running his businesses, that’s a very flawed argument, as above.
Not only are “unqualified” and “ineligible” two different things, but the Republicans, led by Trump himself, actually tried very hard to challenge Obama’s eligibility.
Fotheringay-Phipps, it takes skill to run a business, but it takes no skill at all to buy an index fund. If he couldn’t do that well, then he shouldn’t have been running a business.
Let’s suppose he shouldn’t. How does that change the point?
The bottom line is that he was as successful as the average leadership of the companies that comprise these index funds. That’s not idiot level.
You can have great skill in a field and still not beat the average of the whole economy. Great skill applied in a business that gets hammered by Amazon or Wal-Mart, for example, means that one necessarily is inept or stupid with regards to business?
A McDonalds franchisee not having a crystal ball to see that a Chik-Fil-A is going to open next door in a year is inept?
He was less successful than the average leadership. And being worse at it than the average doesn’t constitute idiocy, but being worse than average and not realizing it does.
If you have a hundred dollars, making a thousand isn’t easy. If you have a million dollars, making a thousand is almost inevitable.
The data shows he was slightly above average.
He was only worse than average if you cherry pick your years.
No, it isn’t. Did you read the quote? He was specifically addressing the betrayal of broken promises. Empathizing.
It was a stupid thing for a politician to say, but it’s true.
Reducing the situation to one variable is improper though.