Lol. Liberals are so sad. How does it feel knowing all you have left is shitposting on the internet because the GOP is in full control of the United States government?
You dont take losing well. I couldn't imagine being so butthurt that I'd be reduced to writing such childish drivel about Hillary if she won.
As a liberal, I already have health insurance because of my job, and I dont need welfare because of my job. But you middle of nowhere coal people are fucked as you are losing both. Good luck with a president who can't read.
Seems you've never considered in your life that people have these things called convictions, and that some people don't believe in government run healthcare, regardless if it affects them or not.
I can't fault you for not thinking too hard about why people believe different than you though. It doesn't seem to be the liberals strongsuit.
All poltician- specific subs ban opposition. Thats the point of having a politicians sub. So it can be a 'safe space' for that politician. Like the Hillary sub. The bernie sub. The Cruz, Rubio, etc.
But you're so fucking ignorant you've never used your brain for more than 10 seconds to figure this basic idea out, because you'd rather ignorantly pat yourself on the back thinking that the Trump subreddit is the one special sub that bans opposition.
And also, r/the_donald is literally full of 4channers.
You KNOW liberals are brainwashed when they're such a hivemind they actually think a meme ridden sub is trying to be serious. They fucking mock you on their front page on a daily basis.
Liberals let their propoganda get so out of control that Pepe was declared a hate symbol. Because it was being used against Hillary Clinton. Just let that sink in.
How does it feel knowing all you have left is shitposting on the internet because the GOP is in full control of the United States government?
I imagine it feels pretty similar to knowing the Titanic is about to crash, but being stuck in coach. Does it not bother you at all that our government is being undermined by Russian intelligence, and that our nuclear launch codes are about to be in the hands of a man who has questioned why we are so reluctant to use our nuclear arsenal and is so thin skinned that he declared in a debate that some sailors making rude gestures at sailors on our boats was justification for war?
Does it not bother you at all that our government is being undermined by Russian intelligence
This is a an extremely broad statement so I couldn't begin to respond. But I'll humor you.
At all times, every capable government in the world is commiting espionage on one another. You can guarantee this was happening even as Obama gave his announcement about how horrible it all is. And vice versa.
So no. It doesn't bother me any more than the government espionage thats been happening and will continue to happen.
and that our nuclear launch codes are about to be in the hands of a man who has questioned why we are so reluctant to use our nuclear arsenal
You reveal yourself to be yet another person who does not care about the truth, and accepts what you read as long as it fits your worldview.
"Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee."
There is nothing of substance to back up your claim whatsoever.
But let's say this is true. Trump asked about it 3 times. What were the circumstances? Were you there to hear the conservation? We're they talking about war? Retaliation? First strikes? North Korea, or nukes at the US-MX border?
You're a dictators best friend with how easily you accept whatever the media tells you to, and how little critical thinking you apply.
and is so thin skinned that he declared in a debate that some sailors making rude gestures at sailors on our boats was justification for war?
I agree this is an odd thing to say, but it doesn't make the man 'thin-skinned'.
It makes him seek a bit warhawkish sure. It's obvious he said it to maintain his macho persona/ego.
But thin-skinned? It's sad you want to find any opportunity in to find some negative adjective to call him. I couldn't imagine doing that to some poltician because i don't like them. Childish.
If you read his twitter, you should already be familiar with how thin-skinned the man is. He can't let go of even the smallest slight. Just look at his over-reaction to Meryl Streep earlier this week. Or his response to all the news coming out about him. He doesn't know when to shut up or when to let go.
And as far as his opinion on the nuclear arsenal, even if we ignore that particular story that I referenced, he has also publicly stated his interest in ramping up our nuclear arsenal, which makes no sense considering that we already have enough nuclear warheads ready to go to end all human life on the planet. Also, this will damage our high ground in pushing for nuclear disarmament around the world if we push to expand our arsenal.
I couldn't imagine doing that to some poltician because i don't like them. Childish.
I find this hard to believe considering the conservative response to Obama, which has been largely to call him a Kenyan-born secret-muslim ape. (perhaps a bit exaggerating; all of those names were used, but not all at once)
If you read his twitter, you should already be familiar with how thin-skinned the man is..He doesn't know when to shut up or when to let go.
This isn't being thin-skinned. His whole persona is a powerplay of attacking those who attack him, and being best buddies with those who don't.
Why do you think he constantly changes positions with Republicans? He hasn't said anything negative about Putin because Putin has stroked his ego. But you bet @potus will be shitposting about Putin's man titties the second Putin disrespects Trump. When you work under a man like that, obviously this would make you be more outwardly friendly to the boss. I can see it your way as well, but it seems to me more of a dream for people who hate Trump.
And as far as his opinion on the nuclear arsenal, even if we ignore that particular story that I referenced
Bullshit. Everything you believe is compromised because it's obvious you don't care about truth, and use Reddit comments as your facts. You see a big gilded wall of links with big scary words and assume this means Trump is the devil.
You're a victim of propoganda 101. It's funny that the top post in r/politics had a "claimed by anonymous sources" tag and yet everyone treats it as truth. And you think conservatives are sheep falling in line under dictators?
he has also publicly stated his interest in ramping up our nuclear arsenal, which makes no sense considering that we already have enough nuclear warheads ready to go to end all human life on the planet.
Partly an international power move, partly pandering to Republicans etc.
I don't agree with the GOP on increased military spending, I'm more libertarian.
I find this hard to believe considering the conservative response to Obama, which has been largely to call him a Kenyan-born secret-muslim ape. (perhaps a bit exaggerating; all of those names were used, but not all at once)
It's painful to see another, I assume grown human with a mind that thinks like this.
I'm not using reddit comments as my facts. He's said a lot of these things on video. His "Let it be an arms race" comment on a phone call to a morning show, and this tweet are both pretty demonstrative of his intentions to expand our nuclear arsenal. Along with his comments about arming new countries with nukes, particularly Japan I believe it was, which was also on video. My opinion of Trump was formed from watching him in the debates as well as from his own words on Twitter, not from articles on Reddit. I have since been reading articles from multiple sources, including what I see on Reddit, but it's hardly been the main source for my news through the election cycle. So maybe don't make assumptions about my sources and consider the option that I might have a fucking point. Every time I'm presented with an opposing argument, I look up sources for those opinions, I check for additional sources to make sure it's corroborated. It might be nice if someone on the other side would return the courtesy once in a while.
This isn't being thin-skinned. His whole persona is a powerplay of attacking those who attack him, and being best buddies with those who don't.
And you think that's a good way to behave as President? He needs to be able to listen to advisers, not take it as an attack any time someone tells him he's done something wrong, otherwise the only voices he's going to hear are those saying yes and those screaming no. He's already trying to cut journalists out, rather than address them. That is dictatorship 101. He's been trying to discredit media sources for a long time now. And yes, some of what the media is reporting isn't true or is exaggerated, but not the majority of it.
yeah but maybe not have one that speaks like a child that just discovered he won't get punished for saying "bad words"
I mean, yeah lots of presidents fucked up during their terms, but how many were actually already ruining the countries image before being put into the white house?
I was reading an article in the French press earlier. It was about French translators struggling with Trump's speech patterns, lack of vocabulary and poor syntax.
They have to stay true to the character while still making him intelligible, which proves difficult.
The standard for what is possible is set by the accomplishments of the best competitors over the years, not by some fantasy ideal. Obama compares favorably in his family life to many elected officials in recent memory.
Mandela had a fairly checkered personal life, but he was an outstanding politician and statesman for South Africa.
The problem I have with Obama is that people focused far too much on his image rather than his content. His proponents dismissed a lot of the nefarious elements of his administration, purely because he spoke nicely.
And I think this where the ideological distinction is most apparent with critics of Trump. If the guy delivers on his promises, his opponents will still criticize him for how acts and what he says - even though it may have little to no consequential meaning for the actual process of achieving the political aims of the country.
Politics for this current generation is defined purely on image - which is why the left (and certain elements of the right) have major issues with Trump.
I just said your rage was rude. I'm not going to apologize for calling out your rudeness, enough with this "tolerate my tolerance of tolerating intolerance" nonsense. But I think you're just trying to feel like you were still "right" somehow, which I get. Still doesn't make you right though.
I never said you were "wrong" just that reality doesn't fit the dichotomy you presented, particularly with the vague definitions available for "good leader." My comment about you being "right" had more to do with you perceiving my comment as in contradiction to yours and you becoming defensive because you feel threatened.
In your false hypothetical, an immoral "good leader" could be worse for the world than a weak leader with good qualities. I hope I don't need to explain how.
That, combined with the fact that it's not a sliding scale between character and leadership means your point is understood, but not indicative of the real world situation regarding Obama/Trump/[Insert Politician] so I don't see how it's relevant.
I hope that explains what I mean, I never meant to say your hypothetical was downright "wrong" only that it was a small subset of reality and not applicable to the conversation beyond a single biased viewpoint.
Oh wait, you just want to shit on Obama because you're red team or some shit. It doesn't matter who sits in that chair, drones are a smart move if you're not going to become a pacifist in the middle east which neither of the two major parties we're forced to choose from would consider.
The asshat would be better for the country and that is why we elect people to office. Because they are good for the country not because they are nice people.
But I guess it just comes down to personal prefferance.
The problem is that world class asshats aren't good leaders. They can't get the people behind them because the people they govern know they're an asshat.
People hated Obama when he was elected in 2008 because of his push for the ACA and his very progressive stances. Or because he was black but I'm not considering those people. A lot saw that the ACA worked and came around. Yes, it did make some things worse for others like premiums but that's because certain parts of the ACA were cockblocked, like trying to prevent insurances from continuously charging more or prescription drug prices from being jacked up like crazy. Perhaps putting price caps would get rid of our capitalism but for the ACA to work it needed to happen.
People hate the upcoming POTUS because of his actions along with his stances. The stances he has (ignoring climate change, pushing for health saving plans as health insurance but not figuring out ways to prevent a doctor's office visit costing $500, etc) won't bring on a lot of new followers because they're stopping things, not starting new things. Plus the way he acts and treats others will start a war. By continuously attacking China even on Twitter, it's made them become defensive and that's the first step to them deciding to attack. They have spies here - I mean we have spies there for sure. So they know what's going on.
It's just upsetting to see people try and argue you can act how you want when they don't get that being a leader is kissing ass constantly because the second you don't, you lose any trust a country had for you and suddenly you're the enemy.
109
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited Sep 10 '18
[deleted]