It get’s worse. Latest term of reference is “NPCs”, from “non-playable characters”, something from video games. Dehumanization, anyone?
As to your first point, Trump didn’t say that he creates jobs, he said Republicans produce jobs, obviously contrasting that against Democrats. I think I’ve shown that to be false – do you agree or disagree?
Of course we can’t compare his first 21 months with a two-term president, which is why I left his record out. It remains to be seen how he does over his one or two terms. Since we both agree that we can’t compare his 21 months with a full term president, why do you think he said that? Was it a stupid thing to say?
As to your second point, Trump is obviously claiming that Democrats produce more mobs than Republicans, otherwise his meaningless. Do you think he meant, “Republicans and Democrats both produce mobs, but my claim is that it may be the case that, in the 60s, Democrats likely produced more”?
I definitely do not think of the antifa to be progressive. I think they are anarchists, which is maybe part of the extreme left wing? Democrats are not extremely left wing – they would fit in nicely with the conservative parties in Europe and Canada.
Do you consider white supremacist hate groups to be Republican? I don’t – I think they are racist crazies. One difference is that, it may be likely that white supremacists actually do vote, and probably for Republicans. I doubt the antifa can get their shit together to vote for anyone, but they probably vote Green if they vote at all.
But, I think I misunderstood your reason for starting this thread. If you want to discuss the political effects of his obviously incorrect slogan, I think the people who already in his camp will shout “Yeaah!!!” and then “Lock her up! Lock her up!!” More intelligent people will see it as the empty, meaningless, lying slogan that it is.
Political effects aside, do you agree that the first part of his slogan is probably wrong and the second part is definitely wrong?
I think people need to be reminded of one simple fact. The unprecedented reactions to this “administration” result from the unprecedented actions of this administration. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” True in physics, true in politics.
More gibberish from a slob who lies ten times a day.
Yawn.
BREAKING NEWS: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic[sic??] candidate for President of the United States of America, fails to secure enough electoral college votes to win the 2016 election! Your Channel 88 Breitbart Action News Team is still
on the scene, watching as the story develops. Tune in for updates at 10:00, 10:05, 10:10, 10:15, 10:20…
Then maybe you shouldn’t have led with:
Because “a sadly-accurate reflection of the current state of affairs” sure as hell implies that Dems are the mobs and Repubs aren’t.
And this is kinda silly unless “leftist incivility, vandalism, destruction of property, violence, mob actions, etc” is happening enough for anyone besides Fox News watchers to take notice of. It’s up to you to demonstrate that is so.
This is especially true in an environment where (as I cited upthread) just since Trump’s taken office, white supremacists and neo-Nazis and the like have literally killed dozens of people in this country, and injured dozens more.
Based on today’s data, then, you are in the minority.
I don’t get excited over daily, weekly, or monthly performances. I’m in it for the long term. And my retirement investments are performing well over the last 2 years, and over the last 20 years.
Believe what you will, even though it not be a true representation.
No, he’s right. I’m not sure why you’d think otherwise.
No he’s not. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Well, polls show that Trump is the laughingstock of the world, that popular opinion of the U.S. has totally crashed around the world since 2016. And with the exception of a handful of dictators, opinion of Trump among leaders of major countries is pretty obvious.
And is the environment and the future threatened under Trump? Hell, yes. Climate change is real; I saw an article not too long ago where the companies investing on the basis of changes to the climate are betting heavily on its getting a lot worse. If parts of the world become unlivable as fertile land turns into arid land, and arid land turns into desert, or as coastal flooding increases, a lot of bad shit will go down.
And of course Trump pulled us out of the Paris accords, wants to keep coal alive as an energy source, and in general is against doing anything about climate change.
Being appalling?
The “mobs” are at Trump’s rallies. He incites them.
Polls showed, by a large margin, that Clinton was going to win. I don’t think she won.
Not only is that assertion wrong, but even if it was true, it still wouldn’t have anything to do with this discussion.
So you’re wrong twice at the same time.
This post encapsulates quite well the conservative understanding of things like science.
Polls showed Clinton leading in the polls. When Election Day was done, she actually won the polls. But our election system wasn’t designed to have the presidential candidate with the most votes actually winning.
When one can’t be even the least bit accurate with what is being measured, it becomes tempting to disregard science and facts and stuff. That’s how we end up with nonsense like climate change deniers, tax cuts pay for themselves, abortion causes breast cancer, etc.
Oh, me too, I suppose a correction needed to happen. But that hit was not welcome. But really no surprise considering what is supposedly running the country.
This administrations antics of a game of pin the tail on the donkey is a bit worrisome.
I intend to hang tough, and hope for the best.
Very good. You are correct.
Trump dug for and found exceptional stupid racist people to vote for him. I think it was an accident on his part, and he never really wanted the job. He certainly doesn’t know what the job is.
Now, he finds the spotlight on himself. He loves it. As long as he is in the news, he is important. I wonder if he will feel the same in the courtroom. He probably will.
You don’t really seriously believe “the left” is less “civil” than the right, so stop pretending you do.
No, they did not show that. The polls showed she would win the popular vote by a small margin, which she did. The best analysis of the results of that in the Electoral College said she was a favorite to win the EC, but that Trump had a pretty good shot of winning it anyway even as he would likely lose the popular vote, which is what happened. The polls were quite accurate.
It’s only been two years, I don’t know why people struggle to remember this stuff.
No
A stunning rebuttal. I was gonna ask, “Who’s going to hear this slogan and find it convincing?!” but I guess we found our answer.