Donald Trump

[SWP's back]

How would you know whether I read someone elses hand picked links, or not ?
Am I supposed to read them, have an epiphany, and fall on the alter of the groups opinion begging forgiveness ?

Are you another who knows me better than I know myself ?

It insinuates that they are more 'stupid' than the oppositions electorate. If this were the case most of the major inner cities in the US would all be voting for Trump, turning them all from blue to red. So this clearly isn't the case.

This is why I know you haven’t read them.

 

[SWP's back]

Though you handily managed to forget the part that states "So this clearly isn't the case" for your own nefarious reason.

Which we find out now is the old "shout racist and win the argument".... Which is pathetic.

View attachment 127203

It’s very amusing that you think he’s losing the debate.

 

[SWP's back]

No one claimed that anyone, who votes for Trump is uneducated.

The original statement was that people, who didn’t go to college, are more likely to vote for him.

There is a huge difference.

It was you, who either didn’t read the post correctly, or chose to interpret it erroneously.

Yes this point has been made to the idiot several times but seeing as he has the reading comprehension of a hand towel, he doesn’t understand.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Blimey, Dax, you’ll have people agreeing with you next.

There is often modicum of truth in what he says. Sometimes a smidgeon, sometimes more. Occasionally more than that, even, and frequently none at all, of course.

Take the good bits on board and leave the rest alone and the world will be a better place.

 

[MouldensChippy]

It’s very amusing that you think he’s losing the debate.

You obviously weren't following that particular part too well.

He thought he'd proved that I was a Trumper by misquoting a statement. You know, out of context, editing the actual statement to suit his theory.
When pulled up on that, rather than correct it, or even try to debate it, he immediately jumped into shouting racist from a figment entirely of his own imagination.
It's a very old tactic, very boring, and tiresome, even childish.

 

[SWP's back]

You obviously weren't following that particular part too well.

He thought he'd proved that I was a Trumper by misquoting a statement. You know, out of context, editing the actual statement to suit his theory.
When pulled up on that, rather than correct it, or even try to debate it, he immediately jumped into shouting racist from a figment entirely of his own imagination.
It's a very old tactic, very boring, and tiresome, even childish.

No, he read your entire post quite correctly, you believe people that live in inner cities (ie black people) are stupid and thus if non-college educated people were more likely to vote Trump, then inner cities would be red rather than blue.

You’ve decided to die on this losing hill and made a complete and utter tit of yourself for twenty pages.

This is your quote “It insinuates that they are more 'stupid' than the oppositions electorate. If this were the case most of the major inner cities in the US would all be voting for Trump, turning them all from blue to red. So this clearly isn't the case.”

And still you’ve failed to actually read the articles that show that the more education an individual has, the less likely it is that they vote for Trump. That isn’t even up for debate. It doesn’t mean EVERYONE that went to college votes blue, nor does it mean that EVERYONE that left school at 16 voted for Trump, but no one other than you made that claim. But, on average, more years in education does make someone less likely to vote for Trump.

 

[KS55]

No, he read your entire post quite correctly, you believe people that live in inner cities (ie black people) are stupid and thus if non-college educated people were more likely to vote Trump, then inner cities would be red rather than blue.

You’ve decided to die on this losing hill and made a complete and utter tit of yourself for twenty pages.

This is your quote “It insinuates that they are more 'stupid' than the oppositions electorate. If this were the case most of the major inner cities in the US would all be voting for Trump, turning them all from blue to red. So this clearly isn't the case.”

And still you’ve failed to actually read the articles that show that the more education an individual has, the less likely it is that they vote for Trump. That isn’t even up for debate. It doesn’t mean EVERYONE that went to college votes blue, nor does it mean that EVERYONE that left school at 16 voted for Trump, but no one other than you made that claim. But, on average, more years in education does make someone less likely to vote for Trump.

My hand towel agrees with you.

 

[FlemishDuck]

To point out tha thing A has a negative effect on thing B, doesn't mean you are blaming everything wrong with thing B on thing A. Just that there is an added negative effect.

I'm always going to perceive it as there is a reasonable fashion to talk about the immigration issue and a polemic one. I find the immigration debate to be a legitimate one when one can argue that a country is "too full", but if its going to be about stigmatizing immigrants by for example painting them as criminals or maliciously intended then it feels more about creating a black sheep to blame it on.

I think the Dutch can attest to a degree. Population density in the Netherlands is pretty high to the point that a lot of Dutch people even live in Belgium nowadays, housing prices are very high and you dont get much for your money relatively speaking. There was once a rather moderate enough politician called Pim Fortuyn who wanted to address that issue in not such a polemic way with his slogan "Netherlands is full" and he very very sadly got assassinated. Whatever that idiot Volkert Van der Graaf thought he would achieve the result is that you get somewhat more extreme alternatives like Geert Wilders.

Our own radical right party is more of that polemic and "pro capitalist nature" (Vlaams belang) They are anti immigration with 2 speeds, certain groups like Jews are welcome because they are ready to add to party funds to create polemics against the Muslims and there is a lot of xenophobic stuff you can say against Muslims and get away with. The aim of the polemic fashion in which Immigration debate is handled is to make people afraid and foster hate between groups.

Thats the issue with Trumps fashion in which he handles it too imho. It's not just about managing poppulation density and such, its not like "we just need to make sure less people come". It's about things like "Migrant (or "Bigrant") crime", about how theiy are going to "steal your black jobs", how they are "not sending their good people, but dumping their criminals and mental patients". Thats already fostering a form of hate trough attributing malicious intentions that could lead to violence.

I dont get that its a matter of really creating reasonable policy's and all that for Trump. The immigration debate is simply a weapon for him, a means to get to power more easily by playing on populism and fear. In fact i think that the vast majority of parties that are anti immigration are of that ilk, it's not about actual policy but about attaining power trough "easy propaganda", and those same party's will prove to be of the "radical capitalist" kind but even that is just a means of being able to be more corrupt and gaining more money out of ones political carreer as the big lobby and party fund money comes from industry. Which is to say in many cases they are simply opportunist, they dont nessecarily believe all the BS they are spewing its just a calculated move to gain power and wealth.

This is especially so in Belgium. The "Vlaams Belang" kinda doesnt even want to rule the country, as long as they are a big opposition party they are rewarded royaly for it with hughe party fund contributions comming from the Belgian state. The level of corruption is absolutly staggering. In many cases these are just greedy men who will put on whatever face to get more power and wealth.

I particularly was hoping for someone other than Trump. If he wins, he is a lame duck President. Especially if Democrats win the House back and keep the Senate. Both of which are definitely possible.

Its probably one of the stronger arguments against trump when putting all polemics asside, Trump is not a unifier or a concensus maker so the more radical his program is the less likely it might be that it will ever become a thing.
However the recent SCOTUS decission regarding presidential immunity is "effing scary" and might allow Trump to force certain things down "despite of democracy".

 

[Nightmare Walking]

I find the Americans who want to vote Trump absolutely nuts.

If you ask any of his fans whether they would let a racist, rapist, convicted felon, date their daughter, they would say no. Yet, they all want one to be their next president.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Oedema