1 hour ago, Unknown33 said:

It would seem your main unsolicited criticism of me is that I am not arguing enough to suit your tastes. Guilty as charged, and I will accept the punishment for my behavior.

No, not really.

Let me summarize your posts for you.

You posit that Trump is a great President and all criticism of him is hyperbole/lies. @ChaosEngine attempts to ask for your metric, and your response is that "nah, I'm not gonna argue, your positions/beliefs/facts are just hyperboles, this is pointless." You've pretty much continued with that line and then proceeded to post your own falsehood that Trump was not from a pretty rich family. It seems that you have labeled anything that sounds even remotely critical of Trump as hyperbole/false. 

So why did you post here? Just posting about how Trump is amazing and then some more half researched points on how Trump represents the people and how the electoral college is egalitarian then going ahead and claiming that everything else is hyperbole sounds a lot like trolling to me.

56 minutes ago, Unknown33 said:

Have you tried reasonable dialogue?

You just claimed that you aren't going to post anything more because of hyperbole but at the same time accuse others of not trying reasonable dialogue.

56 minutes ago, Unknown33 said:

Using arbitrary criterion to label political opponents persona non grata is a great way to ensure that you and they can never achieve any mutual understanding. It's preferable only if your desire is to never get along and always have a reason to debate. If your goal is to find common ground and further the discussion, this is the opposite of the correct approach.

What arbitrary criterion? That Trump has used racial/xenophobic rhetoric, has made statements that are racist, and has pushed for racially motivated policies, those are arbitrary criterion? The criticisms of his very unhinged leadership that involves criticizing anyone critical of him, including attacking the press, that's all arbitrary? Attacking our allies for no good reason, that's arbitrary? Again, notice I'm not even touching conservative policy keystones here.

No, this isn't the opposite of the "correct" approach. This is basically you continuing your claim that most criticisms of Trump are unwarranted and to claim that people who don't like Trump are "just angry". The "correct" approach to you seems to be to simply not bother with any of the criticisms leveled at Trump. You want to engage in dialogue by basically ignoring anything critical of Trump.

Your whole goal seems to be to hurl around the baseless claim and build the false narrative that all criticism of Trump is hyperbole and simply the narrative of people who are angry about their candidate not winning.

This is pretty pointless to continue in.

1 hour ago, Lendrigan Games said:

Yes, it can.  Human nature is naturally fond of ruts, finding preferable the continuing of the status quo as long as it's not immediately inconveniencing.  Simply by being an incumbent, he already has a considerable advantage come 2020.

That's a fair point. The status quo is usually easiest to go with. That and for many people, the effects aren't immediately tangible yet. 

1 hour ago, Lendrigan Games said:

In order for the support to stop, the minds of his supporters must be changed.

Keep in mind that he has very low approval ratings. Of course, that doesn't translate into votes, but let's see what happens.

1 hour ago, Lendrigan Games said:

To those who presume a possible escape from the eldritch nightmare: what -can- change their minds, and how would that procedure happen?

I suspect core support will probably never waver really.

17 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

Pretty much nothing thrown at him has stuck, or turned out to be a lie

False on both counts and building a straw man. But as has been shown in the past, you've pretty much ignored anything critical of Trump and dismissed most things as either hyperbole or simply fake news. What'd be more accurate is that nothing you've cared about has happened so far to change your view, and I suspect very little actually will change your view given your history.

17 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

How many times was he supposed to be impeached now?

That's a straw man you've used before that has been disproven before. No one who's actually following the developments has claimed that x story will cause impeachment.

In any case, no Republicans won't impeach him since they've bought into the Trump train at this point.

17 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

as for the nyt article.... Why would anyone submit an article like that when the nsa can get into every computer? It claims they stole documents off of Trump's desk.... In one if the must secure rooms in the world, with cameras everywhere.... I don't buy it, sounds like fake news or a low level staffer making up lies hoping for a book deal.

What? What does the NSA have to do with this? That makes no sense at all.

17 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

As someone who called Trump's win way back from when he first started doing weekly rallies (and I was supporting Rand Paul), I think with this economy and low trust in media, Republicans are going to crush Democrats in 2018.

You really haven't been following polls or the past special elections have you.

Low trust in the media? Dude, you and the core Trump supporters are the ones who keep on harping about this. It's a great way to dismiss any and all criticism of Trump.

The economy is doing well so far, sure, as it has been for quite some time. I will concede this, that it's a major factor for sure.

8 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

The small children who were separated from their parents and caged at the border would likely beg to differ on that last part.

It seems to me that people angry at Trump are no longer angry merely because he won, but because of the things he has done in office that affect real people's lives and have a real impact on how your country is seen in the diplomatic arena. Multiple posters have covered that ground in this thread, so I won't repeat all of it, but perhaps you'd like to engage in "reasonable dialogue" with that idea, instead of blowing off other posters' concerns as whining that their preferred candidate didn't win* and claiming that life is wonderful in general because it is (apparently) wonderful for you and nothing that happens in politics affects you in any meaningful sense.

You've said that Trump is a "good president" because he reflects the values of the people who elected him, but I have serious issues with that definition of "good." For one thing, a country's head of state represents all of that country. A good president would represent all of America and act in America's best interests, not merely in the best interests of himself and his supporters. Perhaps you'd like to engage in "reasonable dialogue" with that idea, too. I am incredulous that you could claim, with a straight face, that Trump is acting in the best interests of the United States as a whole.

*(which I would assert borders on intellectual dishonesty and is probably the reason you're being voted down)

 

That's very spot on. There's a lot of points covered in this thread about things that Trump has done that are absolutely angering people. 

56 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

The small children who were separated from their parents and caged at the border would likely beg to differ on that last part.

It seems to me that people angry at Trump are no longer angry merely because he won, but because of the things he has done in office that affect real people's lives and have a real impact on how your country is seen in the diplomatic arena. Multiple posters have covered that ground in this thread, so I won't repeat all of it, but perhaps you'd like to engage in "reasonable dialogue" with that idea, instead of blowing off other posters' concerns as whining that their preferred candidate didn't win* and claiming that life is wonderful in general because it is (apparently) wonderful for you and nothing that happens in politics affects you in any meaningful sense.

You've said that Trump is a "good president" because he reflects the values of the people who elected him, but I have serious issues with that definition of "good." For one thing, a country's head of state represents all of that country. A good president would represent all of America and act in America's best interests, not merely in the best interests of himself and his supporters. Perhaps you'd like to engage in "reasonable dialogue" with that idea, too. I am incredulous that you could claim, with a straight face, that Trump is acting in the best interests of the United States as a whole.

*(which I would assert borders on intellectual dishonesty and is probably the reason you're being voted down)

 

I've found that highly politicized people don't see others socially, but rather they see people as objects to be manipulated for leverage and personal gain. For example, accusing somebody of being guilty of a crime, simply because they don't agree with your politics. When you really analyze it, it's not any different than what children do in grade school, causing some children to be ostracized by associating with certain others.

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

The mi6 agent?

Steele? He's real and wrote the dossier. I'm not sure what the hell you are getting at. As for the tape, who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if its real. Maybe it isn't. Really though, that's still an ongoing investigation. 

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

The omorossa n word tape?

Omorossa is his own damned staffer. I find it funny that you're presenting this as a claim for something that's false that those against Trump are throwing against him. Pretty pointless example of something that may or may not be true but more indicative of just how screwed up his administration is.

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

The obstruction case for mccabe?

Again, what are you talking about? Most of the investigations are still ongoing. It's still false to claim that the investigations have 'fallen apart'

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

Just because the left conveniently forgets the failed issues don't mean America as a whole does.

Nah you just conveniently forget and gloss over all sorts of stuff. Funny how you seem to make everything about Left vs Right, then claim to speak for America as a whole. Neither of which are correct.

The kids in cages, the endlessly racially charged rhetoric (which you may not care about but many do), the large list of indictments and guilty pleas in the Mueller probe, the racially charged travel ban, his absolutely terrible handling of the Puerto Rico hurricane, his continued attacks on the press which are attacks on anything critical of him. This list also goes on and on. You've glossed over and forgotten most of them as well.

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

My previous theories have been proven correct, really. Trump lies to his opponents, to his base, to other works leaders, but his policies are moderate.

No, you're just claiming your theories are correct since it's more convenient to do so. You know about as much as we do as to why the hell Trump has such deranged behavior. To call his policies moderate is pretty bold. That tax cut is straight up Republican. And most of his policies have not been remotely moderate.

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

The border issues have been ongoing since Clinton, Trump finally fixed them, and now he's the bad guy?

Trump fixed the border issues!? What are you talking about? That's straight up false.

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

Again, I'm not even a core Trump supporter. I'm very socially liberal, while Trump projects a conservative image.

Dude, you've spun excuses and instant denials for any criticism leveled at Trump from the very start of these politically related threads. Whatever you may believe about yourself, you come off as a ridiculously entrenched Trump supporter.

45 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

I'm familiar with the polls, but Republicans have done great in every special election.

Not true. They've lost support pretty badly in every special election so far in districts they carried by landslides. That's not indicative of doing great.

In any case, time will tell. This isn't worth debating anyways.

Debating with you has and always will be a pointless cause since for whatever reason, you've only spun and denied instantly. 

15 hours ago, Unknown33 said:

I'll check back tomorrow to see if you've decided to address any of the realities I presented to you. I personally see nothing to respond to in this post. Take care.

What 'reality'? All you said is that Trump represents those that voted for him. Well, yeah, he does. That's your point?

Now, if your point was supposed to be that he represents the "downtrodden", the disenfranchised, the 'left behind', I'm afraid statistics don't agree with your thesis at all. Unless you think black women in the US represent the 'elite' and the 'establishment'.

See, 'civil discourse' is impossible with your kind because you don't actually have anything to say(or if you have, you don't want to say it in broad daylight *yet*) - there's no program or policy for which you support Trump, it's pure reaction. So, talk about *what* exactly? Is there an actual, concrete subject here we can debate about? You don't hold Trump accountable for anything, any policies or decisions, because there's no reason you support him other than 'owning the libs'. As long as he does that, he's golden. You don't like to be called out on it, but you don't really have a logical response either, so you keep shouting 'civil discourse! civil discourse!' as your last resort. Also, whining about your downvotes? Grow up, snowflake.

Well, you know what they say. If you cannot be cogent, at least be verbose. If not an orator, a legend in one's own mind.

How's that for cogent?

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

Seems to me Trump represents mostly upper-middle class white men over 45, mate. Ah yes, the underdogs of the US and A, who never had a voice, now at last they got one, and their hopes are renewed. Let us celebrate, if not for nothing else, then for the fact that those that never had "one of their own" in power, now do.

Let me remind you that in this thread you made one point, and one point alone, and it was this :

"that Trump's victory has given a large number of people a renewed sense of hope that a small, unelected aristocracy of wealthy celebrities, business moguls and media figureheads don't own the free world. That's something everyone should be celebrating."

Please consult the statistics I just posted and let me know if you think this point still stands. Is the "free world" really "owned" by black people, women and poor families?