You know, zk and Harvey, fuck you both for calling me a Trump supporter.
[/quote]
I didn’t call you a trump supporter. I agreed with harvey’s statement that trump supporters have concluded that it’s wrong for trump non-supporters to attack him personally and that only attacks on his policies are valid.
I could have included a sentence stating that sdduuuude isn’t necessarily a trump supporter, and I probably should have, but I didn’t think it was necessary at the time.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Just because I say the liberals are acting like morons, and they are,
[/quote]
How are liberals acting like morons, exactly?
[quote=sdduuuude]
doesn’t mean I’m a Trump supporter or a Republican or a Fox watcher.
[/quote]
No, but your position seems to be more consistent with fox propaganda than it does with common sense. And you’ve always seemed a common-sense type of guy, outside of politics. Hence the conjecture that you probably watch fox.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Trump is making the liberals look like fools. Plain and simple.
[/quote]
How is that, exactly?
I would argue that he’s making his supporters (and therefore a sizeable majority of republicans) look pathetic and disgusting for supporting such a vile human being, and I’m quite curious to see how you think he’s making liberals look like fools.
[quote=sdduuuude]
The liberals sent Hillary to battle. She sucked so badly that Trump, even with all the adjectives you use to describe him, beat her. Strangely, you blame Fox news for this and not the shortcomings of the liberal message.
[/quote]
Hillary was a very weak candidate. Mostly because many Americans had a very dim view of her, which was mostly due to fox et al. besmirching her for the past 30 years. Regardless of why she was weak, she was weak, and the democrats did send her to battle. Big mistake, I agree. But even with the dim view that most Americans had of her, she wouldn’t have lost to trump without a lot of help from fox (in addition to the help they provided by smearing her for decades). She wouldn’t have lost to a man who doesn’t deserve to be a high school teacher, let alone the president.
So I do blame fox (and the rest of the right-wing noise machine). They took a woman who was brilliant and tough, but lacked vision and warmth, and they tore her down while they built up trump, and they conned millions of Americans into thinking a man who is neither brilliant nor tough, and who also lacks vision and warmth, and who has the temperament of a 3rd grade bully, among countless other disqualifying personality traits, was better than her.
[quote=sdduuuude]
When Clinton was getting his cigar smoked by “that woman” the message from the Democrat side was that the character of the person didn’t matter, it was what he accomplished as President.
[/quote]
See, it’s that kind of faulty reasoning that makes me think you watch right-wing media. I don’t understand how, without some kind of manipulation having occurred, a smart guy like you can’t see the problem with that logic. To wit: Getting your cigar smoked by an intern does not make you an ineffective president. Trump’s human failings do. If you can’t see how trump’s personal flaws make him a terrible president, ask me for a list. (If you do partake of non-right-wing media, you’ll already know this, as items on said list are reported by the NYT and WAPO quite regularly. One generally doesn’t see them on fox, though.)
[quote=sdduuuude]
Let the sour grapes continue.
[/quote]
Sour grapes means that you want something but can’t have it, and therefore conclude that that thing you wanted before you found out you couldn’t have it is bad. Doesn’t apply in this case.
People misuse that fable all the time, and it bugs me. Particularly when it’s used to somehow cast aspersions on any negative opinions and opine that those negative opinions are somehow invalid. If our president is a disaster of a human being such that it’s causing problems for our country, it is not sour grapes to call him out. It’s patriotic.
