World markets are tanking

[homersapien 11,362]

10 hours ago, kd4au said:

I see you are grasping any straw you can find to smear this victory by Trump.

If by "straw" you mean the well-publicized fact that Trump accepted the support of a large following of organized racists and by "smear" you mean simply pointing that out, then yeah, you're right.

[homersapien 11,362]

9 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Daaamn Homey... your heart turn colder with the weather or what?

 

 

 

That's mean man.

Go back and read the post I am responding to. I am just returning fire.

 He's an a**hole.

[AURaptor 1,122]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If by "straw" you mean the well-publicized fact that Trump accepted the support of a large following of organized racists  and by "smear" you mean simply pointing that out, then yeah, you're right.

Cite? 

[Mims44 1,867]

Just now, homersapien said:

Go back and read the post I am responding to.  He's an a**hole.

Combat veteran, listening to idiotic little brother tout trump for past hour, 4 drinks deep into the night... my heart still isn't in that deep freeze homer mode

[AUFAN78 3,894]

8 hours ago, AUUSN said:

Shut it down. Perfectly stated and well done.

Ditto

[homersapien 11,362]

9 hours ago, japantiger said:

So yeah, I think you think you are intellectually superior; just like your candidate did.  Otherwise, you wouldn't call half the population of the country your "enemy" (which your candidate did) and losers (which you just did).  I think that pretty much speaks for itself.   

First, Hillary is not "my" candidate.  I didn't want her to win the nomination, but she did.

I don't recall he calling half of the country her enemy, so you'll have to enlighten me on that.    

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

First, Hillary is not "my" candidate.  I didn't want her to win the nomination, but she did.

I don't recall he calling half of the country her enemy, so you'll have to enlighten me on that.    

She said something to the effect of: her greatest enemy is the republican party.

[homersapien 11,362]

11 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Cite? 

Look it up yourself, it's well publicized.

Just google: Trump Duke white power endorsement or some such.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

She said something to the effect of: her greatest enemy is the republican party.

That obviously requires some context, but its understandable and arguably justifiable.  

Regardless, it's hardy the same as saying "half the country is my enemy".  That's a disingenuous construction.

[AURaptor 1,122]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Look it up yourself, it's well publicized.

Just google: Trump Duke white power endorsement or some such.

Making claims you have not support for. Thanks homer. I knew you had nothing. 

[Mims44 1,867]

1 minute ago, AURaptor said:

Making claims you have not support for. Thanks homer. I knew you had nothing. 

It is very well known the KKKK dude vocally supported Trump, and that Trump didn't go for or against it.

Best argument you go for raptor is the don't give a F argument. As I'm sure if some cat/dog rapist psycho would have loved Hillary it would not have swayed most of her voters either.

[homersapien 11,362]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Perhaps but, I do not believe it is that simple.  That simplicity is merely the associated rhetoric.  Seems as though you are playing along.

I don't believe the majority of these people are inherently racist or, feel privileged.  I think they are frightened, angry, misinformed.  They do not sufficiently understand politics, economics, power, finance.  Like those people demonized by the political right, they aren't unwilling.  They want opportunity.  They do not understand the paradigm shift represented by globalization, automation, consolidation.  Almost all of us will have a reality check unless, we realize that we need to focus on understanding the future, not the past.  We need to examine the realities of American capitalism, not embrace the ideology of free market capitalism.  We have to look at all of these people with a sense of respect and compassion.  We all need to appreciate that expanding economies are most often characterized by broad growth, not consolidation.  We all need to appreciate the true greatness of capitalism, competition, not the thwarting of competition through economic and political power.  

Sure, Trump's rhetoric brought out the worst characteristics of many of these people.  However, deep down, that is a manifestation of fear and anger.  They don't know who, or what, to really be angry with but, like those who supported Bernie, they know that for the past 16 years neither establishment Democrats or Republicans have effectively dealt with the economic and social realities of the growing numbers of disenfranchised.  As the relative values of capital and labor move apart, perhaps there is a "silver lining" in all of this, politically, socially, economically. and from a gained sense of humanitarianism?

Clinton didn't lose because these are inherently bad people.  She lost because they are afraid/angry and, she did absolutely nothing to attempt to connect with them.  She relied on her own platitudes, rhetoric, support of her base.  In fact, she pushed these people away and demonized them.  Foolish move because, say what you will about them.  They do get out and vote.  They may not understand and comprehend all of the economic and political factors, the social implications but, they do care.  Don't blame them when no one is willing to offer detailed explanations, concrete solutions, effective change.  You can not blame the misinformed when you make no sincere attempt in inform them.

 

 

 

Hillary lost because 1) she is a terrible candidate and 2) this was a "change" election and she represented anything but change.

Trump won because 1) he obviously represents a radical change (from the ordinary politician) and 2) his strategy of cynically playing to his voter's prejudices (fears)  and sense of victimhood while making empty promises about bringing back lost industries and the return to a different era.

Everything else was window dressing.

 

[AURaptor 1,122]

7 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

It is very well known the KKKK dude vocally supported Trump, and that Trump didn't go for or against it. ( He did disavow Duke , early on, so the claim that he " accepted " anything from these folks is non existent. ) 

Best argument you go for raptor is the don't give a F argument. As I'm sure if some cat/dog rapist psycho would have loved Hillary it would not have swayed most of her voters either.

the well-publicized fact that Trump accepted the support of a large following of organized racists

For this to have been accurate, Trump would have had to publicly acknowledge and then , by name, accept and or thank said racist groups. I asked for evidence of any such thing , and homer balked. Per usual. 

 

* even after the loss, snowflakes like Homer are STILL trying to paint Trump for what he isn't. A ' racist '. Yeah, so racist that he pulled more Blacks AND Hispanics. 

[homersapien 11,362]

6 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

It is very well known the KKKK dude vocally supported Trump, and that Trump didn't go for or against it.

Best argument you go for raptor is the don't give a F argument. As I'm sure if some cat/dog rapist psycho would have loved Hillary it would not have swayed most of her voters either.

Apparently not as well known as we thought.  

[japantiger 4,051]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That obviously requires some context, but its understandable and arguably justifiable.  

Regardless, it's hardy the same as saying "half the country is my enemy".  That's a disingenuous construction.

ANDERSON  COOPER: Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.

The context is, half the nation are republicans ... and she lumped them with the Iranians...so, yeah, I think she said exactly that.   

[homersapien 11,362]

11 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Making claims you have not support for. Thanks homer. I knew you had nothing. 

It's common knowledge weasel.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

She lost because 1) she is a terrible candidate and 2) this was a "change" election and she represented anything but.

Trump won because 1) he obviously represent a radical change (from the ordinary politician) and 2) he cynically played on his voter's prejudices(fears)  and sense of victimhood while making empty promises about bringing back lost industries and the return to a different era.

I think you can bring some industry back to this country.  You will risk a trade war of course.  However, in the end, no country can afford that currently.  We need to level the playing field.  We should not allow such open, unconditional access to our consumer market.  Developing countries should have to meet certain targets in order to participate.

[Mims44 1,867]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

the well-publicized fact that Trump accepted the support of a large following of organized racists

For this to have been accurate, Trump would have had to publicly acknowledge and then , by name, accept and or thank said racist groups. I asked for evidence of any such thing , and homer balked. Per usual. 

 

* even after the loss, snowflakes like Homer are STILL trying to paint Trump for what he isn't. A ' racist '. Yeah, so racist that he pulled more Blacks AND Hispanics. 

That's being kind of nitpicky man, I'm sure you knew what you were doing.

Just now, homersapien said:

Apparently not as well known as we thought.  

Of all the things I dislike about Trump, him being a racist isn't one... he never seemed to be one in the public eye until he was the GOP pick.

[AURaptor 1,122]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's common knowledge weasel.

And now the name calling, from the bearer of false witness. 

So ' common ', you should easily be able to back it up. 

[AURaptor 1,122]

5 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

That's being kind of nitpicky man, I'm sure you knew what you were doing.

Not even remotely nit picky. Words mean things. You accuse someone of being or doing something, you had best be able to prove it. This ' oh, everyone knows it ' crap is for liars , losers and fools. Homer, I expect that applies. Not so much of you. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

And now the name calling, from the bearer of false witness. 

So ' common ', you should easily be able to back it up. 

Awe, did you get called a name?  That's so sad.  

[homersapien 11,362]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

the well-publicized fact that Trump accepted the support of a large following of organized racists

For this to have been accurate, Trump would have had to publicly acknowledge and then , by name, accept and or thank said racist groups. I asked for evidence of any such thing , and homer balked. Per usual. 

Seriously?  He received the endorsements. He didn't bother to disavow them even following publicity regarding his refusal to disavow them. 

This 'rule' you invented regarding the lack of a formal acceptance statement regarding their support is amusing.  

That's the sort of weaseling nuance I would expect of you.  After all, that's what dog whistle racism is all about, right?

[homersapien 11,362]

7 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

That's being kind of nitpicky man, I'm sure you knew what you were doing.

Of all the things I dislike about Trump, him being a racist isn't one... he never seemed to be one in the public eye until he was the GOP pick.

Oh I don't know if he's actually personally racist or not.  I just don't make a distinction between that and playing to, or accepting other's racism for political advantage.  I call it the "George Wallace standard".

[AURaptor 1,122]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?  He received the endorsements. He didn't bother to disavow them even following publicity regarding his refusal to disavow them. 

This 'rule' you invented regarding the lack of a formal acceptance statement regarding their support is amusing.  

That's the sort of weaseling nuance I would expect of you.  After all, that's what dog whistle racism is all about, right?

No he didn't. You're just making s*** up. There's nothing for me to make up. That's how it works, Sally. For a candidate to receive an endorsement, he must acknowledge the existence of those endorsing him.  You're either too simple or playing so in order to carry on an argument. One you've already lost. Just like the election. 

[Mims44 1,867]

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Not even remotely nit picky. Words mean things. You accuse someone of being or doing something, you had best be able to prove it. This ' oh, everyone knows it ' crap is for liars , losers and fools. Homer, I expect that applies. Not so much of you. 

For things not well covered for the audience sure... but the people on these forums are not dunces. Acting is if they are to string out a conversation is in my mind, not the best way to take on an argument.

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Oh I don't know if he's actually personally racist or not.  I just don't make a distinction between that and playing to, or accepting other's racism for political advantage.  I call it the "George Wallace standard".

I wouldn't put Trump on a Wallace standard... he would have to do a hell of a lot more than simply pretend the Duke types didn't exist for that. Maybe if he tried to stop Bama's QB from attending class/playing this week?