Let's be real...the PRO-Trump Brigade is...

[Dameon Farrow]

The biggest issue is how Trump won.

He said alot shyt to an about minorities, never apologized for any of it. He ran a racist campaign plain and simple. You can't expect civilize discussion after all that the campaign represented

OP is a stone cold idiot if he doesn't understand that. People's reactions are warranted.

Unless Trump just happened to not offend @The_One on the trail.

A lotta hatred for liberals on here lately.

Brietbart or st0rmfr0nt? What set y'all claiming?

 

[Booker T Garvey]

You can't read. You implied Obama and Bush would have the same approval ratings if Democrats / liberals were as intellectually honest as Republicans / conservatives are. That argument supposes that Democrats should disapprove of Obama to the same degree that Republicans should disapprove of Bush despite the fact that Bush wasn't conservative on spending, wasn't conservative on immigration, and, preoccupied by a pointless war, saw the economy go to shyt during his presidency.

1) uhhh...going back to my original post, I simply stated that BUSH was not deified, he was not loved, he was not popular among republicans at the time he left office. I was comparing that to Obama's popularity upon leaving office - you do this by simply looking at his poll numbers, Obama's are high where bushes were the lowest EVER.

I don't know where you're getting this that I'm implying his approval ratings would be anything, I don't even CARE why they were low - you're adding shyt to the discussion that has nothing to do with my point and wanting me to discuss those things....no. just focus on what I said; and i'm using DATA and accolades, things that are REAL not political bias, emotions or theories.


See point number 1 again. Gays and hispanics are large parts of the Democratic base, so to dismiss them outright is stupid. The Democratic base consists of minorities and working class people, and neither of those groups experienced had massively visible failures for which they could point to Obama's mismanagement. The closest thing to a huge, visible failure was Obama's response to police violence for black people. Women were OK, gays saw great strides, Hispanics did well, and working class people weren't directly and adversely impacted by any new emerging trend or event that happened under Obama. Get it? Probably not, you're dumb.

2) This statement proves that you don't even read or pay attention to the news: every other article is about the Democratic party losing touch with the working class - this is beyond a "coli" discussion, look for yourself and feel free to jump in the comments section and disagree with the authors of these articles too (all of these are less than a month old):
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/democrats-joe-biden-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more | Robert Reich
Want to win the working-class vote? Try progressive economic policies, Democrats

If you can't understand the difference, even just in terms of optics, of using drone strikes and small numbers of special forces vs. deploying nearly 200k ground troops in an invasion, you need to smarten up. It's pretty simple to understand why people would have a more visceral reaction to one than they would another.

3) Again, you're wanting to argue bullet points - the fact of the matter is that Obama started wars/conflicts; he's also the first ever president to enter and leave the office at war...you didn't negate my point here.

You're either young or you never actually understood what was happening when Obama was inaugurated
4) And once again, George Bush left office with the lowest approval ratings of any president ever - this is a fact. Not really sure what anyone's "understanding" of what was happening at the time has to do with that.

Heres a tip to help you with your debate skills: Stop being so emotional and learn to base your arguments in facts, logic, reason, and data. If you look at FACTS and reality, and your argument crumbles, then let it go. maybe you just need to move on to another forum or re-think your allegiances

 

[Maschine_Man]

OP is a stone cold idiot if he doesn't understand that. People's reactions are warranted.

Unless Trump just happened to not offend @The_One on the trail.

A lotta hatred for liberals on here lately.

Brietbart or st0rmfr0nt? What set y'all claiming?

snowflake got his feelings hurt?

 

[Reality]

You can't read. You implied Obama and Bush would have the same approval ratings if Democrats / liberals were as intellectually honest as Republicans / conservatives are. That argument supposes that Democrats should disapprove of Obama to the same degree that Republicans should disapprove of Bush despite the fact that Bush wasn't conservative on spending, wasn't conservative on immigration, and, preoccupied by a pointless war, saw the economy go to shyt during his presidency.

1) uhhh...going back to my original post, I simply stated that BUSH was not deified, he was not loved, he was not popular among republicans at the time he left office. I was comparing that to Obama's popularity upon leaving office - you do this by simply looking at his poll numbers, Obama's are high where bushes were the lowest EVER.

I don't know where you're getting this that I'm implying his approval ratings would be anything, I don't even CARE why they were low - you're adding shyt to the discussion that has nothing to do with my point and wanting me to discuss those things....no. just focus on what I said; and i'm using DATA and accolades, things that are REAL not political bias, emotions or theories.


See point number 1 again. Gays and hispanics are large parts of the Democratic base, so to dismiss them outright is stupid. The Democratic base consists of minorities and working class people, and neither of those groups experienced had massively visible failures for which they could point to Obama's mismanagement. The closest thing to a huge, visible failure was Obama's response to police violence for black people. Women were OK, gays saw great strides, Hispanics did well, and working class people weren't directly and adversely impacted by any new emerging trend or event that happened under Obama. Get it? Probably not, you're dumb.

2) This statement proves that you don't even read or pay attention to the news: every other article is about the Democratic party losing touch with the working class - this is beyond a "coli" discussion, look for yourself and feel free to jump in the comments section and disagree with the authors of these articles too (all of these are less than a month old):
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/democrats-joe-biden-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more | Robert Reich
Want to win the working-class vote? Try progressive economic policies, Democrats

If you can't understand the difference, even just in terms of optics, of using drone strikes and small numbers of special forces vs. deploying nearly 200k ground troops in an invasion, you need to smarten up. It's pretty simple to understand why people would have a more visceral reaction to one than they would another.

3) Again, you're wanting to argue bullet points - the fact of the matter is that Obama started wars/conflicts; he's also the first ever president to enter and leave the office at war...you didn't negate my point here.

You're either young or you never actually understood what was happening when Obama was inaugurated
4) And once again, George Bush left office with the lowest approval ratings of any president ever - this is a fact. Not really sure what anyone's "understanding" of what was happening at the time has to do with that.

Heres a tip to help you with your debate skills: Stop being so emotional and learn to base your arguments in facts, logic, reason, and data. If you look at FACTS and reality, and your argument crumbles, then let it go. maybe you just need to move on to another forum or re-think your allegiances

1. Breh...you don't even understand your argument let alone mine. What's your point in saying that Obama's deified if it's not to imply that Republicans were somehow more "honest" or clear in thinking in their dealings with Bush? Quite simply, what's your point if it's not that Obama shouldn't be receiving as much support as he is? You're talking about people not even talking about earmarks in a healthcare bill and then pointing to approval rating polls as if the people being called by Gallup et al on ANY side (democratic or republican) is getting into that level of detail. Bush had massive, easily digestible and visible fukkups and Obama didn't. YOU are the one who brought up approval ratings. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

2. Not sure what your point is. White working class people can leave the democratic party without Obama's approval ratings plummeting. What's your point?

3. This is a non-sequitur. So? My argument, that you seem to be struggling with, is wholly around addressing your implication that Obama is getting a "pass" that Bush didn't get as evidenced by approval ratings, commentary, etc. I'm saying that Obama gets a pass because he's been smart enough to not deploy huge number of ground troops and keep his wars "sanitary" for public consumption. Prosecuting a war via drones and small numbers of forces isn't the received the same way as prosecuting one via deploying a ground invasion, no matter how much you think it should be. If Obama had invaded Syria over the questionable sarin gas episode you'd have a much stronger point.

4. My point is that you're suggesting the state of the economy now is somehow comparable to what it was when Bush left. Why do you keep bringing up poll numbers if the point isn't that Obama's getting a pass Bush wouldn't???

Tell me if this is not your rationale:

1. Obama and Bush have had more or less similar levels of efficacy as presidents with respect to satisfying their respective constituencies in the general public

Your supporting rationale with the unstated rationale that you have yet to address in the parentheses:

• They've both gone to war (i.e. people don't have different appetites for drone / "limited" wars vs. ground invasions)
• Obama's healthcare plan came up short in ways that his base cared about just as much as Bush's base cared about controlling spending and being hard on immigration (i.e., democratic constituencies care as much about premiums rising as republican constituencies care about the country not being tougher on immigration)
• The economy's not doing great under Obama and it wasn't doing great under Bush (i.e. the average American's situation is just as poor today as it was under Bush)

2. However, Obama has a higher approval rating than Bush did at the same point in Bush's presidency
3. Therefore, Obama's constituency is giving Obama a pass that Bush's constituency did not give him

 

[Booker T Garvey]

1. Breh...you don't even understand your argument let alone mine. What's your point in saying that Obama's deified if it's not to imply that Republicans were somehow more "honest" or clear in thinking in their dealings with Bush? Quite simply, what's your point if it's not that Obama shouldn't be receiving as much support as he is? You're talking about people not even talking about earmarks in a healthcare bill and then pointing to approval rating polls as if the people being called by Gallup et al on ANY side (democratic or republican) is getting into that level of detail. Bush had massive, easily digestible and visible fukkups and Obama didn't. YOU are the one who brought up approval ratings. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

2. Not sure what your point is. White working class people can leave the democratic party without Obama's approval ratings plummeting. What's your point?

3. This is a non-sequitur. So? My argument, that you seem to be struggling with, is wholly around addressing your implication that Obama is getting a "pass" that Bush didn't get as evidenced by approval ratings, commentary, etc. I'm saying that Obama gets a pass because he's been smart enough to not deploy huge number of ground troops and keep his wars "sanitary" for public consumption. Prosecuting a war via drones and small numbers of forces isn't the received the same way as prosecuting one via deploying a ground invasion, no matter how much you think it should be. If Obama had invaded Syria over the questionable sarin gas episode you'd have a much stronger point.

4. My point is that you're suggesting the state of the economy now is somehow comparable to what it was when Bush left. Why do you keep bringing up poll numbers if the point isn't that Obama's getting a pass Bush wouldn't???

Tell me if this is not your rationale:

1. Obama and Bush have had more or less similar levels of efficacy as presidents with respect to satisfying their respective constituencies in the general public

Your supporting rationale with the unstated rationale that you have yet to address in the parentheses:

• They've both gone to war (i.e. people don't have different appetites for drone / "limited" wars vs. ground invasions)
• Obama's healthcare plan came up short in ways that his base cared about just as much as Bush's base cared about controlling spending and being hard on immigration (i.e., democratic constituencies care as much about premiums rising as republican constituencies care about the country not being tougher on immigration)
• The economy's not doing great under Obama and it wasn't doing great under Bush (i.e. the average American's situation is just as poor today as it was under Bush)

2. However, Obama has a higher approval rating than Bush did at the same point in Bush's presidency
3. Therefore, Obama's constituency is giving Obama a pass that Bush's constituency did not give him

1) you're confusing yourself then - go back to the very first quote of mine you made; I simply said that Bush was not worshiped and beloved the way Obama is today, then I provided facts. If my facts are wrong then point them out - Any other point you made outside of this irrelevant and an entirely new discussion altogether.

2) for the third time: Obama failed the middle/working class, this is the class that has historically always been the backbone of the party and they abandoned it - and for the SECOND time, this is not just my opinion, but the opinion of millions.
are you paying attention to our discussion?

3) All of that is fine and dandy, but my point is that he started up additional wars/conflicts - you're arguing political bullet points and I'm not. Start a new discussion if you want to break all of this down - my only point in bringing this up is to illustrate that he is not a man who walks on water and can turn stones into mcribs - he is just another war mongering president, reality backs up this argument whether you like it or not.

4) wow. the only thing i said was that do you see a huge difference in america from 2008 and 2016....all of this extra shyt is stuff you are adding to the discussion.

you're just overthinking your arguments over there, adding to what i'm saying then trying to call people idiots if they don't play along with the your new bullet points and the direction in which you're trying to steer the conversation

you still haven't negated my point: The far left deifies obama, refuses to address his flaws (like the way you're short circuiting in here), and regardless of your hatred for the right wing; they never treated Bush this way, he was a shyt president and they even acknowledged it <<<<<everything I just said here is backed by reality and facts. any other emotional response or reaction you have to this is irrelevant - provide sound arguments/facts/data to negate this statement and then we can move forward - I'm not your shrink though fam, I can't do this all day.

 

[Pressure]

No, what you view as flaws are just simply not what others view as flaws. Not everyone shares your world view. It isn't this difficult.

 

[Booker T Garvey]

No, what you view as flaws are just simply not what others view as flaws. Not everyone shares your world view. It isn't this difficult.

so address this...it's the patriot act dipped in a bath salts, steroids and crystal meth smoothie

NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue | The Huffington Post

 

[Pressure]

so address this...it's the patriot act dipped in a bath salts, steroids and crystal meth smoothie

NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue | The Huffington Post

Make your point and I will address it. If I wanted to address the author directly I'd use the comments section. Use your brain, not someone else's.

 

[Booker T Garvey]

Make your point and I will address it. If I wanted to address the author directly I'd use the comments section. Use your brain, not someone else's.

 

[The American]

I guess you now want to run with a fallacy that someone convicted of a crime is lying by default? Lol. You don't believe that.

Furthermore, O'Keefe is not a felon.

His covert operations were so stealthily and expertly done it got ACORN shut down.

And recently, his work has helped to expose the DNC and Clinton campaign trying to manipulate voter turnout as well as paying agitators to cause trouble at Trump rallies, so much so that James Foval and another colluder Robert Creamer had to be fired or resigned.

Don't run from the truth breh. It will set you free.

The accuracy of the videos has been questioned, as O'Keefe's edits reportedly omitted necessary context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available.[15][93][95][96] DNC Chair Donna Brazile also said they omit necessary context.

James O'Keefe - Wikipedia

Credibility is . Dude is shyt, I've seen him post on TheDonald, you prolly post there too

Sorry cac, try a better witness for the prosecution. Fact remains that if you voted for trump, you are categorically against the values of this message board. An enemy to all of us.

 

[keepemup]

The accuracy of the videos has been questioned, as O'Keefe's edits reportedly omitted necessary context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available.[15][93][95][96] DNC Chair Donna Brazile also said they omit necessary context.

James O'Keefe - Wikipedia

Credibility is . Dude is shyt, I've seen him post on TheDonald, you prolly post there too

Sorry cac, try a better witness for the prosecution. Fact remains that if you voted for trump, you are categorically against the values of this message board. An enemy to all of us.

'The accuracy of the videos has been questioned' - questioning does not mean invalidated.

But more importantly the video evidence is there and the administrations reaction to the evidence proves it yet further.

Would you like me to provide you some links friend? I'm on your side to free you from that mental padded room you enjoy.

It'll probably take a while to sink in, but when you come to your senses I promise I won't harangue you for it.

I proudly voted Trump. We won and you're gonna get what's good for you whether you realize it or not...Ya bish.

 

[Maschine_Man]

The accuracy of the videos has been questioned, as O'Keefe's edits reportedly omitted necessary context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available.[15][93][95][96] DNC Chair Donna Brazile also said they omit necessary context.

James O'Keefe - Wikipedia

Credibility is . Dude is shyt, I've seen him post on TheDonald, you prolly post there too

Sorry cac, try a better witness for the prosecution. Fact remains that if you voted for trump, you are categorically against the values of this message board. An enemy to all of us.

I hope it has been questioned Just as I hope everyone questions everything that they get told.

the problem is that ppl don't like it when someone questions who THEY support, so they get defensive and start crying.

 

[The American]

00000000000000000000000000029286

I proudly voted Trump. We won and you're gonna get what's good for you whether you realize it or not...Ya bish.

Aigh CAC, explain how trump is good for the black community.

I'll wait

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

His covert operations were so stealthily and expertly done it got ACORN shut down.

ACORN suffered an extremely damaging nationwide controversy beginning in the fall of 2009 after two conservative activists secretly made and released videos of staged interactions with low-level ACORN personnel in several offices, portraying them as encouraging criminal behavior. Several independent investigations eventually found the videos to have been partially falsified and selectively edited by the activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, and cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in the alleged criminal activities and that the organization had appropriately managed its federal funding - but in the meantime the organization suffered an immediate loss of funding from government agencies with which it had contracts, and from private donors.

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia

This is why you look like a clown for bringing up O'Keefe as some legitimate source

 

[keepemup]

ACORN suffered an extremely damaging nationwide controversy beginning in the fall of 2009 after two conservative activists secretly made and released videos of staged interactions with low-level ACORN personnel in several offices, portraying them as encouraging criminal behavior. Several independent investigations eventually found the videos to have been partially falsified and selectively edited by the activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, and cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in the alleged criminal activities and that the organization had appropriately managed its federal funding - but in the meantime the organization suffered an immediate loss of funding from government agencies with which it had contracts, and from private donors.

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia

This is why you look like a clown for bringing up O'Keefe as some legitimate source

That narrative doesn't work. The evidence was outstanding and that's why ACORN was defunded.