Trump Base Shows Signs of Cracking

[esmith]

Go on and explain to me the reality of an eagle maintaining flight while at the same time firing a fully automatic weapon and then we can discuss why the Hulk can't pick up Thor's hammer.

1. I was assuming question was addressed to tank firing
2. Big f'ing eagle

 

[leibowde84]

The only thing dumber than a country which voted for Trump
is a country which ran Hillary as the even worse alternative.

Well, that is a judgment call. The majority of voters saw Hillary as the better of the two candidates. I agree with the majority in that respect.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that is a judgment call. The majority of voters saw Hillary as the better of the two candidates. I agree with the majority in that respect.

That's potentially misleading, depending upon the definition of "majority".
More precisely....
The majority (52%) voted against her.
She had only a plurality (48%).
And even then, only around 58% of eligible voters voted.
So she only garnered about 1/4 of voters' approval.
This is not the ringing endorsement imagined by Dems.
Ref....
2016 Presidential General Election Results
Democrats keep trying to somehow wring a victory from these miserable statistics, but
the country just did not want her in power....almost as much as they didn't want Trump.
(Note though that he won 30 of the states. She won only....you know.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's potentially misleading, depending upon the definition of "majority".
More precisely....
The majority (52%) voted against her.
She had only a plurality (48%).
And even then, only around 58% of eligible voters voted.
So she only garnered about 1/4 of voters' approval.
This is not the ringing endorsement imagined by Dems.
Ref....
2016 Presidential General Election Results
Democrats keep trying to somehow wring a victory from these miserable statistics, but
the country just did not want her in power....almost as much as they didn't want Trump.
(Note though that he won 30 of the states. She won only....you know.)

Majority actually can simply mean "the greater number", which she did have. She had the majority of votes. That's just a fact. Also, saying that other people's phrasing is "potentially misleading" is hypocritical when you use phrases like "voted against her", and "she only garnered 1/4 of voters' approval". These statements are clearly and intentionally misleading.

"52% of voters did not vote for Hillary" does not equate to "52% of voters voted AGAINST Hillary". And saying she only had "1/4 of voters approval" is dishonest when you're including "people who didn't vote" in the category of "voters", which is just plain silly.

This line of reasoning is just desperately clutching at straws to avoid admitting a simple fact: Hillary got the most votes in the election. I don't know why you're so upset about this fact.

 

[esmith]

Majority actually can simply mean "the greater number", which she did have. She had the majority of votes. That's just a fact.

But she is not President (thankfully) and Trump is (thankfully) that is all you have to remember.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But she is not President (thankfully) and Trump is (thankfully) that is all you have to remember.

Which is hilarious, considering the reason Trump was only in office because of the electoral college - a system he railed against when Obama won their vote earlier. That must have really bruised his ego.

Also, are you seriously thankful that your country is now lead by a man who is an international laughing stock?

 

[Revoltingest]

Majority actually can simply mean "the greater number", which she did have.

Note that I said "potentially misleading".
The ambiguity of the word could lead some to an over-reach, thinking she had over 50%.

She had the majority of votes. That's just a fact.

When ambiguity lurks in a statement, it can range from fact to factoid.
So to pronounce it as a "fact" is bespeaks a sloppy rationale.

Also, saying that other people's phrasing is "potentially misleading" is hypocritical when you use phrases like "voted against her", and "she only garnered 1/4 of voters' approval". These statements are clearly and intentionally misleading.

I was working so hard to be civil & all about the issues with him, but you step in to misuse the word, "hypocritical".
Tsk...tsk....
I'm aiming for unambiguous language on all fronts.
I note that you fail to point how I mislead anyone.
And unlike you, I gave a supporting reference for elaboration.

"52% of voters did not vote for Hillary" does not equate to "52% of voters voted AGAINST Hillary".

You're splitting hairs here.

And saying she only had "1/4 of voters approval" is dishonest when you're including "people who didn't vote" in the category of "voters", which is just plain silly.

You misunderstand what "dishonest" means too.
I was quite clear that that figure included eligible voters who did not vote.
Such clarity & precision is the opposite of an intent to deceive anyone.

Do you really think that I'd think that Leibowde84 would fall for subterfuge.
You must think little of one or both of us.

This line of reasoning is just desperately clutching at straws to avoid admitting a simple fact: Hillary got the most votes in the election. I don't know why you're so upset about this fact.

It seems you're too angry & emotional to discuss this.
Why else the erroneous personal criticism out of the blue.

 

[leibowde84]

That's potentially misleading, depending upon the definition of "majority".
More precisely....
The majority (52%) voted against her.
She had only a plurality (48%).
And even then, only around 58% of eligible voters voted.
So she only garnered about 1/4 of voters' approval.
This is not the ringing endorsement imagined by Dems.
Ref....
2016 Presidential General Election Results
Democrats keep trying to somehow wring a victory from these miserable statistics, but
the country just did not want her in power....almost as much as they didn't want Trump.
(Note though that he won 30 of the states. She won only....you know.)

By "voters" I meant people who actually voted. But, yeah, she did only get 48%. My mistake. But, she did get more votes than Trump.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I bet if the election was held today between the two, Trump would still win.

I hope that you are incorrect, but if not, it appears that ordinary Americans are no longer qualified to self-govern - a situation that immediately evolves into one in which they no longer do.

Exactly what does one need to see to realize that that would be a repeated blunder?

And what should one's commitment be to a people that are simply unable to evaluate evidence? Do you really want your wagon hitched to their star?

 

[Revoltingest]

By "voters" I meant people who actually voted. But, yeah, she did only get 48%. My mistake. But, she did get more votes than Trump.

We're on the same page.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That has nothing to do with my point. Have you never had a decision that at the time seemed like a good idea, but then later you are like, "Maybe that was not the best choice."

Buyer's remorse. It happens every day somewhere.

 

[leibowde84]

I hope that you are incorrect, but if not, it appears that ordinary Americans are no longer qualified to self-govern - a situation that immediately evolves into one in which they no longer do.

Exactly what does one need to see to realize that that would be a repeated blunder?

And what should one's commitment be to a people that are simply unable to evaluate evidence? Do you really want your wagon hitched to their star?

It is depressing, for sure. Trump was right when he said that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose support.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

[Hillary's] fans are oblivious to her faults, & consequently believe that her presidency would've been Camelot. It's a faith based longing for an alternative reality.

Whoever wanted a faith based alt-reality won.

It's mind boggling that this discussion continues. What will it take to think that this presidency is worse than unsecured personal emails or whatever the grave concerns there are? I think that if security issues are your primary concern, Leaky Trump is your president.

Imagine the outrage from the right if Hillary or Obama were in Trump's position. It's 2^(Benghazi x Birth Cerificate).

 

[Revoltingest]

Whoever wanted a faith based alt-reality won.

For some, no doubt.
I had no firm expectations of any particular outcome if Trump won.
Just bet on the lesser of 2 evil horses in an unpredictable race.

It's mind boggling that this discussion continues. What will it take to think that this presidency is worse than unsecured personal emails or whatever the grave concerns there are? I think that if security issues are your primary concern, Leaky Trump is your president.
Imagine the outrage from the right if Hillary or Obama were in Trump's position. It's 2^(Benghazi x Birth Cerificate).

I didn't base my vote upon her emails, upon Bill, upon Benghazi, or her pantsuits.
It was primarily upon her political record & her stated agendas (which comported with her record).
Her incompetence & corruption were secondary.
I could go into all the reasons, but I've done that to death, & am loath to go thru it all again.

Btw, he's your president.
(I gave you whatever share I had in it.)

 

[esmith]

Which is hilarious, considering the reason Trump was only in office because of the electoral college - a system he railed against when Obama won their vote earlier. That must have really bruised his ego.

Also, are you seriously thankful that your country is now lead by a man who is an international laughing stock?

Yes, the alternative would have been the, as some name her, the Hildabeast..
Where do you get the idea that he is an international laughing stock? You must be listening to Anderson Cooper and the rest of that crowd.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I'm happy to provide evidence to back up my views of Trump. But, your reluctance to even ask for it shows your irrational bias of any negative views of Trump.

Interested in seeing the evidence, or are you just set in your admiration of the "man".

Not at all. Your posts never read as political, as a legitimate criticism of a politician might. It's always social for you, ie an emotional reaction rather than anything intellectual.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Note that I said "potentially misleading".
The ambiguity of the word could lead some to an over-reach, thinking she had over 50%.

Except it doesn't, and nor would it be relevant it it did.

When ambiguity lurks in a statement, it can range from fact to factoid.
So to pronounce it as a "fact" is bespeaks a sloppy rationale.

There was no ambiguity. The statement was a fact. The best you did was clarify.

I was working so hard to be civil & all about the issues with him, but you step in to misuse the word, "hypocritical".
Tsk...tsk....
I'm aiming for unambiguous language on all fronts.
I note that you fail to point how I mislead anyone.
And unlike you, I gave a supporting reference for elaboration.

I already explained how, twice, you used "POTENTIALLY misleading" phrasing.

You're splitting hairs here.

You owe me an irony meter.

You misunderstand what "dishonest" means too.
I was quite clear that that figure included eligible voters who did not vote.

So you include "people who did not vote" in the figure of "voters", and you accuse OTHER people of deliberately misleading phrasing.

Tsk tsk to you, sir.

Such clarity & precision is the opposite of an intent to deceive anyone.

The clarity and precision of referring to people who didn't vote as "voters"? I think you're confused. You also owe me another irony meter.

Do you really think that I'd think that Leibowde84 would fall for subterfuge.
You must think little of one or both of us.

So the guy who complains that calling a majority a majority is "misleading" is suggesting that I'm patronizing them?

It seems you're too angry & emotional to discuss this.

I tend to get fed up with hypocrisy, yes.

Why else the erroneous personal criticism out of the blue.

That's a third irony meter. Apparently you "splitting hairs" over the use of the word "majority" is totally okay, but when people expose you for being a hypocrite and deliberately using misleading phrasing in a far worse and more blatant way it's "erroneous personal criticism out of the blue".

Can't take, don't give.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, the alternative would have been the, as some name her, the Hildabeast..

That's quite a good one, actually, hadn't head it. Still, you chose instead to elect a man whose name is literally a commonly used word for "fart".

Where do you get the idea that he is an international laughing stock? You must be listening to Anderson Cooper and the rest of that crowd.

Actually, it's because I live in the England, practically every political commentator in Europe and the UK thinks the guy is a joke. I have no idea who Anderson Cooper is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except it doesn't, and nor would it be relevant it it did.

Perhaps Americastanian English differs from your native version.
From Dictionary.com, (a very popular source) this is the primary definition of "majority"....
"the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority)"
(my underlining of the relevant portion)

So you can see that confusion could be sown.
If you find it irrelevant, why object with such personal animosity?

There was no ambiguity. The statement was a fact. The best you did was clarify.

As I pointed out to the poster with whom I was conversing, it was for clarity.
For someone not part of the discussion, you jumped in with great rudeness, but little understanding.

I already explained how, twice, you used "POTENTIALLY misleading" phrasing.

You've not been able to explain why you believe this.

You owe me an irony meter.

I owe you a spanking....& not the fun erotic kind.
But I eschew violence.

So you include "people who did not vote" in the figure of "voters", and you accuse OTHER people of deliberately misleading phrasing.

You are unclear...perhaps because you've yet to figure out how it's misleading.
When issuing severe criticism, tis best to consider it thoroughly before leaping.
Embarrassment can be avoided.

Tsk tsk to you, sir.

Wounded mortally I am!

So the guy who complains that calling a majority a majority is "misleading" is suggesting that I'm patronizing them?

You're misquoting me, & thereby changing my meaning.
Such mischief does not aid your argument.

I tend to get fed up with hypocrisy, yes.

I take no blame for your shortcomings.

That's a third irony meter. Apparently you "splitting hairs" over the use of the word "majority" is totally okay, but when people expose you for being a hypocrite and deliberately using misleading phrasing in a far worse and more blatant way it's "erroneous personal criticism out of the blue".
Can't take, don't give.

I recommend not butting into conversations for which you're unfamiliar & emotionally unprepared.
He & I resolved everything without your 'help'.

Geeze, Louise....why on Earth would a ferriner get his drawers into such a twist over
an election thousands of miles away? Accusations of lying, hypocrisy & irrelevance?
You don't see me b****ing you out over your politics....not that they matter one whit to us.

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all. Your posts never read as political, as a legitimate criticism of a politician might. It's always social for you, ie an emotional reaction rather than anything intellectual.

You are welcome to your opinion. But, I don't feel that way at all. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

I've formed my views of Trump off my own investigations into his business dealings and his own words/behavior during the campaign. Politically, I do disagree with just about everything he says, but that I can accept, as political views are diverse in this country. In other words, disagreeing with me politically is to be expected. How he took advantage of contractors, showed racial prejudice and lied to get property that he wanted along with his behavior and statements during the campaign and his presidency are not acceptable. Again, if you would like examples, I am happy to provide them. But, that is only if you are interested in why I don't respect the guy.