Great Prediction

[Revoltingest]

A lot of accusations and no proof. She didn't spend enough time thinking about security. Beyond that, she had a lot going for her.

I've fully supported all my reasons for opposing her with evidence.
But I must've been very stealthy because it's invisible to her fans.
Something akin to the SEP field, eh?

A frubal for the first poster to know that reference without googling it.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you consider an orange haired moron with anger issues and a propensity to be power hungry the one to choose. Makes sense to me.

When comparing alternatives, it's dysfunctional to see the worst in one, & to ignore the other.
A balanced approach is better, ie, examine the whole of both.

But you are half right. He is cozying up to our enemies so the threat of war is way down... for now anyway.

There's something to be said for avoiding our former high risk of nuclear war.
But I understand that some value this more than others.

 

[tytlyf]

I've fully supported all my reasons for opposing her with evidence.
But I must've been very stealthy because it's invisible to her fans.
Something akin to the SEP field, eh?

A frubal for the first poster to know that reference without googling it.

So voting for the party that denies climate change is the responsible thing to do for your children and grandchildren? Did I get that right?

The policies of the parties are completely different.

 

[Revoltingest]

So voting for the party that denies climate change is the responsible thing to do for your children and grandchildren? Did I get that right?

The policies of the parties are completely different.

There are more policies to consider than that.
I'm not a single issue voter.

 

[Underhill]

I've fully supported all my reasons for opposing her with evidence.
But I must've been very stealthy because it's invisible to her fans.
Something akin to the SEP field, eh?

I've seen your evidence. But it's only evidence you don't like her foreign policy stances. You've also admitted to having no evidence of Trumps positions. I also pointed out that a narcissist with a propensity to anger makes for a dangerous combination for a president. I've pointed out his lack of foreign policy experience and the likely hood that his personality would make him a lousy diplomat.

All of which is proven out in his actions. Just his behavior in the last week is enough that anyone with any sense should be distancing themselves from him.

A frubal for the first poster to know that reference without googling it.

And using a hitchhikers reference in a discussion about Trump is not cool. It's like seeing your least favorite dictator driving a car you've lusted after all your life. It dirties the cars image for life.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've seen your evidence. But it's only evidence you don't like her foreign policy stances.

It isn't only that.
But you claimed no proof for accusations.
Her foreign policy record stands as evidence.

You've also admitted to having no evidence of Trumps positions.

I don't know what you're talking about here.
Trump's position on some things is borne out by action.
That would be evidence.

I also pointed out that a narcissist with a propensity to anger makes for a dangerous combination for a president. I've pointed out his lack of foreign policy experience and the likely hood that his personality would make him a lousy diplomat.

I've said that long before you pointed it out.
So I don't know why you're arguing about something in common.

All of which is proven out in his actions. Just his behavior in the last week is enough that anyone with any sense should be distancing themselves from him.

And using a hitchhikers reference in a discussion about Trump is not cool. It's like seeing your least favorite dictator driving a car you've lusted after all your life. It dirties the cars image for life.

I understand that you don't like Trump.
I don't like him either.
So I don't know what point you're trying to make...other than listing your dislikes.

 

[fantome profane]

He is cozying up to our enemies so the threat of war is way down... for now anyway.

The threat of war with the U.S. may be way down (maybe). But the threat of war in Eastern Europe has never been higher. (ok, maybe the threat of war in Eastern Europe has been higher, once or twice.)

 

[MonkeyFire]

Who are the plain folk?

 

[Underhill]

It isn't only that.
But you claimed no proof for accusations.
Her foreign policy record stands as evidence.

I don't know what you're talking about here.
Trump's position on somethings is borne out by action.
That would be evidence.

Now, I am talking about prior to the election. Now there is a wealth of evidence of the disaster that is Trump.

I've said that long before you pointed it out.
So I don't know why you're arguing about something in common.

I understand that you don't like Trump.
I don't like him either.
So I don't know what point you're trying to make...other than listing your dislikes.

You voted for the guy. *shrugs

 

[Underhill]

The threat of war with the U.S. may be way down (maybe). But the threat of war in Eastern Europe has never been higher. (ok, maybe the threat of war in Eastern Europe has been higher, once or twice.)

I agree. But most Americans couldn't care less about Trump enabling Putin so long as it doesn't drag us into the fray.

 

[Underhill]

When comparing alternatives, it's dysfunctional to see the worst in one, & to ignore the other.
A balanced approach is better, ie, examine the whole of both.

You think I haven't? She's a woman who has survived being the punching bag of the right for 3 decades. She made her way as a senator and presidential candidate after her husband embarassed her in front of the nation. And she likes pants suits and didn't worry enough about email security. Her policies are very republican on foreign policy and democratic on social issues (much like Obama). That is a pretty accurate portrayal of the woman.

There's something to be said for avoiding our former high risk of nuclear war.
But I understand that some value this more than others.

You think it's lower after he made himself look like a fool after "negotiations" with NK? Or after he cozies up to Putin? Because from where I am sitting, he is portraying a man with very little understanding of history or the implications of his actions. He is simply walking through his presidency in the moment, and everyone he meets with takes advantage of that, from Kim to Putin to the democrats.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, I am talking about prior to the election. Now there is a wealth of evidence of the disaster that is Trump.

Yes, I understand why you wouldn't vote for Trump.
But for me, it's not about looking at what one, disliking
him, & just voting for the other. (This is based upon
your posted objections to him mentioning only him.)

I weighed pluses & minuses for each candidate in all
parties before deciding that Trump would have the
least worst implemented agendas of the candidates
who could possibly win.
Were it solely about liking someone, it would've been
Gary Johnson. But of course, he was certain to lose.

You voted for the guy. *shrugs

You prefered her. *shrugs*

 

[Revoltingest]

You think I haven't?

Not to any great extent. Your posts are generally complaints about Trump,
rather than a comparison of merits & demerits of both major candidates.
Rather than thorough evaluation of alternatives, it appears that you merely
justify why Trump is unacceptable to you.

She's a woman who has survived being the punching bag of the right for 3 decades. She made her way as a senator and presidential candidate after her husband embarassed her in front of the nation. And she likes pants suits and didn't worry enough about email security. Her policies are very republican on foreign policy and democratic on social issues (much like Obama). That is a pretty accurate portrayal of the woman.

In the oppression olympics, she is the clear victor.
But I don't vote based upon that criterion.

You think it's lower after he made himself look like a fool after "negotiations" with NK? Or after he cozies up to Putin? Because from where I am sitting, he is portraying a man with very little understanding of history or the implications of his actions. He is simply walking through his presidency in the moment, and everyone he meets with takes advantage of that, from Kim to Putin to the democrats.

I don't approve of his negotiating technique.
But when voting, one can only guestimate what a candidate will do.
If he runs again in 2020, his behavior, successes, & failures would
be things I'd consider, & weigh against pluses & minuses of whomever
the Democrats run.

 

[Milton Platt]

. . . then the pigs will rule.

Yes, they will..........