Stop looking down on us, please.

[OKTexas]

However, a lot of the adjectives, such as "stupid", "un-American", "unintelligent", are quite warranted. Why? Well, one of the basics of intellectual valuation is the ability to weigh between two different variables, both with positives and negatives, and choose the "best" or "least damaging" one.

No. None of those monikers are warranted. They are labels, only used in the minds of people like yourself to separate us from what you see as civil and acceptable society. How arrogant.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you somehow know which one is the "best" or the "least damaging." Enough damage has already been done by people we placed our trust in before, to be honest.

If you do support Trump you have, by default, shown a marked inability to fairly compare variables and make the correct decision.

And this is exactly my point. You move from complementing me to insulting me in the same post. Really? You don't get to define what is the "correct decision." If I were so unintelligent as a Trump supporter, do you really think I would be able to so easily put my sentiments and my reasoning into words like I did in the OP? I considered voting for Rubio and Kasich numerous times. Rubio started telling dick jokes, and Kasich didn't have much of a spine. Cruz showed himself to be a liar and a dirty player.

With that being said, I guess you're just one of many individuals given to stereotyping people.

You know there are a lot people who make really nice sounding and (on the surface) what looks to be well-constructed arguments. I recognize that you put thought and effort into your post, and for that, I certainly applaud you.

You are certainly correct, I do not get to define what the "correct decision" is. Honestly, it will probably take ~10ish years to get a better perspective on what to think of this election cycle. I'll allow for that. However, I do believe that, given this knowledge, that perhaps one of the better measures on judging our candidates would be how the world views them, as they tend to be relatively unaffected by political leanings.

If we consider this, it becomes pretty clear that Trump, somebody the world both hates and tends to laugh at (unless you are Putin...he's pretty much the only guy that likes Trump, which is honestly more of a negative than a positive), is probably the worst candidate we can consider. If you add back in partisan politics, the choice only becomes even more clear. One of Obama's worst failings is that he was not connected enough in Washington to get done what he was looking to get done. A lot of his years are marked by stalemates and battles between both his administration and Congress and the parties in Congress battling among themselves. Trump has CLEARLY shown that he would only exasperate such a situation...in fact, it wouldn't be uncalled for considering a worst case scenario of a civil war when he takes office considering we may very likely be facing an executive branch militarizing itself to force policies that neither the judicial nor the legislative branches agree with.

On the other hand, if you consider a worst case scenario of even the worst among other candidates (in my mind Clinton) it isn't much worse than just continuing business as usual, draining money from the lower classes and enriching the hyper wealthy. Now, for sure, we do need a change in this country. However, not all change is good change...just voting for change for the sake of wanting change is literally a fool's philosophy.

Edit: Seeing as I'm a fan of people like Kanye West and Michael Jordan, I tend to see no real issue with being called arrogant.

Gandhi said, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win. See any similarities here?

 

[OKTexas]

You say that, but you support Trump...you literally have huge, gaping loopholes in your logic.

And when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, you make my point.

You don't like Trump's attitude, but you do quite the Trump impression yourself, you have little room to lecture me about my logic.

I think Trump's attitude is great in the business world. I'll argue on his behalf all the way tomorrow on how much of a great business man he is.

Unfortunately, the President isn't a business man...different positions have different considerations. Generally, if you are egotistical or arrogant it IS a huge downside for a politician. You aren't going to get many world leaders to side on your behalf...in fact, you might offend a few of them into arming against you. Some people, with intellect, can discern the difference between different situations and different positions. Such is the case here where, in the position of being president, being arrogant is a huge negative. You, on the other hand, not only hate arrogance as a generality, but you have a guy displaying said arrogance in one of the worst positions to display it...but you support him. Sad, sad day for your logical train. I'd go so far to say that personality and perception of personality is so important that you could almost write off Trump as a candidate based solely upon his arrogance, not even considering his radical and absurd stances.

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm probably going to be insulted, chastised, accused of hypocrisy in some sort of way, inciting double standards or whatnot for this post. For those of you not inclined to reading at least a minute or two, please, pass this post by.

But whatever you do, stop looking down on us, please.

Yes, I/we voted for Trump. Not all of us as Trump supporters voted for him because he "tells it like it is" or because we want to stick it to the "establishment." But does that warrant every other person who didn't looking down on us like we're a collective of brainless zombies? We're more often than not referred to in many sorts of derogatory ways, like "stupid", "un-American", "unintelligent", "Nazis", "Drumpfs", "Trumpettes", "racists" "pigs" or what have you. We're not idiots. We're smart people. We have the ability to think, to deduce, to reason. We don't deserve to be labeled. We're not monsters or automatons.

We don't deserve to be blamed for every Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides it would be cute to throw a left hook at or threaten to kill someone during a Trump rally. Violence is wrong, and yes, Trump is wrong for using inciteful rhetoric, though what happened in Chicago a couple nights back was not his fault, like it or not. He had just as much right to speak as the protesters did. But I digress.

Most of us value civility, but to hear the media and everyone else, were out there looking for a fight. We're not members of the Schutzstaffel (The Nazi SS) looking to round up Muslims, Hispanics, or African Americans from their homes in the night, just so we can slit their throats in a perverted sense of superiority. We don't play the knockout game.

It's as simple as this. If the Republican party had done the job we had elected them to do, there would be no Donald Trump. If the Republican party fought twice as hard against Obama as they do Trump, there would be no Donald Trump. There would be no need for violent rhetoric and protests, or name calling. Yes, we recognize Trump is not for everyone, and that people have their own standards to adhere to, and we respect that. But the rest of us, in voting for a man that many of us don't think shares our values, we voted for him in hopes he can help us uphold them.

We voted for Trump for various reasons, and not because we're simply angry. This is a cliche saying, but it rings true today: "you don't know a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes." I myself don't think some of you understand us, or are unable to sympathize with us because we simply voted for Trump. Some of us are desperate. Some of us are afraid. Some of us don't see any way out other than Trump. Some of us are indeed angry; some of us are sick and tired, most of us have gone cycle after cycle voting for one person after the other, hoping that he or she would be the one. And quite frankly, if you're like me, some of us have simply just given up. We are not acting in a fit of pique, this is a movement. We have tried playing by the rules and our reward was naught.

We are American citizens from all walks of life, from business owners, entrepreneurs, to soldiers and veterans, police, and firefighters, we're moms and dads with children scraping to get by, we're employed or unemployed, rich and poor, young and old, we consist of a diverse collection of races and ethnic backgrounds. We're college graduates, high school dropouts, professors and teachers, highly educated or under educated. We're Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We are all human beings. As Shakespeare put it in his play, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1:

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

Hey Templar...don't beat yourself up too badly for voting Trump...George Wallace won five states and 10 million votes in the primary.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Chastising is not coddling. It's condemning

I condemned it. I don't approve of all the extreme rhetoric used on either side. But far be it from me to stop them from saying it. And at risk of sounding...er...well...violent, I'll say they have their own rope, let them hang themselves with it if they so choose.

Otherwise, don't be surprised if, because they make the most noise, they are viewed as the quintessential Trump "fan."

Just understand that they are in the minority. And that I am not their babysitter, their behavior could be due to parental failings, or their own choices. Whatever the case may be, I have enough to deal with in my own life rather than to play a political referee.

 

[Never3ndr]

You say that, but you support Trump...you literally have huge, gaping loopholes in your logic.

And when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, you make my point.

You don't like Trump's attitude, but you do quite the Trump impression yourself, you have little room to lecture me about my logic.

I think Trump's attitude is great in the business world. I'll argue on his behalf all the way tomorrow on how much of a great business man he is.

Unfortunately, the President isn't a business man...different positions have different considerations. Generally, if you are egotistical or arrogant it IS a huge downside for a politician. You aren't going to get many world leaders to side on your behalf...in fact, you might offend a few of them into arming against you. Some people, with intellect, can discern the difference between different situations and different positions. Such is the case here where, in the position of being president, being arrogant is a huge negative. You, on the other hand, not only hate arrogance as a generality, but you have a guy displaying said arrogance in one of the worst positions to display it...but you support him. Sad, sad day for your logical train. I'd go so far to say that personality and perception of personality is so important that you could almost write off Trump as a candidate based solely upon his arrogance, not even considering his radical and absurd stances.

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

 

[OKTexas]

You say that, but you support Trump...you literally have huge, gaping loopholes in your logic.

And when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, you make my point.

You don't like Trump's attitude, but you do quite the Trump impression yourself, you have little room to lecture me about my logic.

I think Trump's attitude is great in the business world. I'll argue on his behalf all the way tomorrow on how much of a great business man he is.

Unfortunately, the President isn't a business man...different positions have different considerations. Generally, if you are egotistical or arrogant it IS a huge downside for a politician. You aren't going to get many world leaders to side on your behalf...in fact, you might offend a few of them into arming against you. Some people, with intellect, can discern the difference between different situations and different positions. Such is the case here where, in the position of being president, being arrogant is a huge negative. You, on the other hand, not only hate arrogance as a generality, but you have a guy displaying said arrogance in one of the worst positions to display it...but you support him. Sad, sad day for your logical train. I'd go so far to say that personality and perception of personality is so important that you could almost write off Trump as a candidate based solely upon his arrogance, not even considering his radical and absurd stances.

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

 

[Gracie]

I'm probably going to be insulted, chastised, accused of hypocrisy in some sort of way, inciting double standards or whatnot for this post. For those of you not inclined to reading at least a minute or two, please, pass this post by.

But whatever you do, stop looking down on us, please.

Yes, I/we voted for Trump. Not all of us as Trump supporters voted for him because he "tells it like it is" or because we want to stick it to the "establishment." But does that warrant every other person who didn't looking down on us like we're a collective of brainless zombies? We're more often than not referred to in many sorts of derogatory ways, like "stupid", "un-American", "unintelligent", "Nazis", "Drumpfs", "Trumpettes", "racists" "pigs" or what have you. We're not idiots. We're smart people. We have the ability to think, to deduce, to reason. We don't deserve to be labeled. We're not monsters or automatons.

We don't deserve to be blamed for every Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides it would be cute to throw a left hook at or threaten to kill someone during a Trump rally. Violence is wrong, and yes, Trump is wrong for using inciteful rhetoric, though what happened in Chicago a couple nights back was not his fault, like it or not. He had just as much right to speak as the protesters did. But I digress.

Most of us value civility, but to hear the media and everyone else, were out there looking for a fight. We're not members of the Schutzstaffel (The Nazi SS) looking to round up Muslims, Hispanics, or African Americans from their homes in the night, just so we can slit their throats in a perverted sense of superiority. We don't play the knockout game.

It's as simple as this. If the Republican party had done the job we had elected them to do, there would be no Donald Trump. If the Republican party fought twice as hard against Obama as they do Trump, there would be no Donald Trump. There would be no need for violent rhetoric and protests, or name calling. Yes, we recognize Trump is not for everyone, and that people have their own standards to adhere to, and we respect that. But the rest of us, in voting for a man that many of us don't think shares our values, we voted for him in hopes he can help us uphold them.

We voted for Trump for various reasons, and not because we're simply angry. This is a cliche saying, but it rings true today: "you don't know a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes." I myself don't think some of you understand us, or are unable to sympathize with us because we simply voted for Trump. Some of us are desperate. Some of us are afraid. Some of us don't see any way out other than Trump. Some of us are indeed angry; some of us are sick and tired, most of us have gone cycle after cycle voting for one person after the other, hoping that he or she would be the one. And quite frankly, if you're like me, some of us have simply just given up. We are not acting in a fit of pique, this is a movement. We have tried playing by the rules and our reward was naught.

We are American citizens from all walks of life, from business owners, entrepreneurs, to soldiers and veterans, police, and firefighters, we're moms and dads with children scraping to get by, we're employed or unemployed, rich and poor, young and old, we consist of a diverse collection of races and ethnic backgrounds. We're college graduates, high school dropouts, professors and teachers, highly educated or under educated. We're Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We are all human beings. As Shakespeare put it in his play, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1:

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

Did you write that yourself, or found it on the net somewhere?

 

[Never3ndr]

You say that, but you support Trump...you literally have huge, gaping loopholes in your logic.

And when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, you make my point.

You don't like Trump's attitude, but you do quite the Trump impression yourself, you have little room to lecture me about my logic.

I think Trump's attitude is great in the business world. I'll argue on his behalf all the way tomorrow on how much of a great business man he is.

Unfortunately, the President isn't a business man...different positions have different considerations. Generally, if you are egotistical or arrogant it IS a huge downside for a politician. You aren't going to get many world leaders to side on your behalf...in fact, you might offend a few of them into arming against you. Some people, with intellect, can discern the difference between different situations and different positions. Such is the case here where, in the position of being president, being arrogant is a huge negative. You, on the other hand, not only hate arrogance as a generality, but you have a guy displaying said arrogance in one of the worst positions to display it...but you support him. Sad, sad day for your logical train. I'd go so far to say that personality and perception of personality is so important that you could almost write off Trump as a candidate based solely upon his arrogance, not even considering his radical and absurd stances.

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

Again, I'm glad you watch Fox News exclusively. I'm not doubting your ability to pick out soundbites and quotes and color them in the light you want to. I never have questioned you, nor the red media's, ability to do so. What I have questioned is whether or not you actually digest media that isn't biased or even biased AGAINST your viewpoints in order to get a more accurate picture of events? Even me, as a liberal, I digest a lot of Fox News media on top of my normal media sources which tend to be AP, or international reporting organizations.

I suppose I have to repeat myself here. If you were to even attempt to have an unbiased viewpoint, you'd realize that Obama doesn't have an attitude of arrogance or egotism. Does he seem a bit unrelatable? Sure. Common folk respond more resoundingly to somebody with more basic vocabulary speaking in short, soundbyte style cadence, with a lot of repetition...that doesn't even come close to how Obama speaks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm probably going to be insulted, chastised, accused of hypocrisy in some sort of way, inciting double standards or whatnot for this post. For those of you not inclined to reading at least a minute or two, please, pass this post by.

But whatever you do, stop looking down on us, please.

Yes, I/we voted for Trump. Not all of us as Trump supporters voted for him because he "tells it like it is" or because we want to stick it to the "establishment." But does that warrant every other person who didn't looking down on us like we're a collective of brainless zombies? We're more often than not referred to in many sorts of derogatory ways, like "stupid", "un-American", "unintelligent", "Nazis", "Drumpfs", "Trumpettes", "racists" "pigs" or what have you. We're not idiots. We're smart people. We have the ability to think, to deduce, to reason. We don't deserve to be labeled. We're not monsters or automatons.

We don't deserve to be blamed for every Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides it would be cute to throw a left hook at or threaten to kill someone during a Trump rally. Violence is wrong, and yes, Trump is wrong for using inciteful rhetoric, though what happened in Chicago a couple nights back was not his fault, like it or not. He had just as much right to speak as the protesters did. But I digress.

Most of us value civility, but to hear the media and everyone else, were out there looking for a fight. We're not members of the Schutzstaffel (The Nazi SS) looking to round up Muslims, Hispanics, or African Americans from their homes in the night, just so we can slit their throats in a perverted sense of superiority. We don't play the knockout game.

It's as simple as this. If the Republican party had done the job we had elected them to do, there would be no Donald Trump. If the Republican party fought twice as hard against Obama as they do Trump, there would be no Donald Trump. There would be no need for violent rhetoric and protests, or name calling. Yes, we recognize Trump is not for everyone, and that people have their own standards to adhere to, and we respect that. But the rest of us, in voting for a man that many of us don't think shares our values, we voted for him in hopes he can help us uphold them.

We voted for Trump for various reasons, and not because we're simply angry. This is a cliche saying, but it rings true today: "you don't know a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes." I myself don't think some of you understand us, or are unable to sympathize with us because we simply voted for Trump. Some of us are desperate. Some of us are afraid. Some of us don't see any way out other than Trump. Some of us are indeed angry; some of us are sick and tired, most of us have gone cycle after cycle voting for one person after the other, hoping that he or she would be the one. And quite frankly, if you're like me, some of us have simply just given up. We are not acting in a fit of pique, this is a movement. We have tried playing by the rules and our reward was naught.

We are American citizens from all walks of life, from business owners, entrepreneurs, to soldiers and veterans, police, and firefighters, we're moms and dads with children scraping to get by, we're employed or unemployed, rich and poor, young and old, we consist of a diverse collection of races and ethnic backgrounds. We're college graduates, high school dropouts, professors and teachers, highly educated or under educated. We're Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We are all human beings. As Shakespeare put it in his play, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1:

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

Did you write that yourself, or found it on the net somewhere?

I wrote that.

 

[Gracie]

I'm probably going to be insulted, chastised, accused of hypocrisy in some sort of way, inciting double standards or whatnot for this post. For those of you not inclined to reading at least a minute or two, please, pass this post by.

But whatever you do, stop looking down on us, please.

Yes, I/we voted for Trump. Not all of us as Trump supporters voted for him because he "tells it like it is" or because we want to stick it to the "establishment." But does that warrant every other person who didn't looking down on us like we're a collective of brainless zombies? We're more often than not referred to in many sorts of derogatory ways, like "stupid", "un-American", "unintelligent", "Nazis", "Drumpfs", "Trumpettes", "racists" "pigs" or what have you. We're not idiots. We're smart people. We have the ability to think, to deduce, to reason. We don't deserve to be labeled. We're not monsters or automatons.

We don't deserve to be blamed for every Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides it would be cute to throw a left hook at or threaten to kill someone during a Trump rally. Violence is wrong, and yes, Trump is wrong for using inciteful rhetoric, though what happened in Chicago a couple nights back was not his fault, like it or not. He had just as much right to speak as the protesters did. But I digress.

Most of us value civility, but to hear the media and everyone else, were out there looking for a fight. We're not members of the Schutzstaffel (The Nazi SS) looking to round up Muslims, Hispanics, or African Americans from their homes in the night, just so we can slit their throats in a perverted sense of superiority. We don't play the knockout game.

It's as simple as this. If the Republican party had done the job we had elected them to do, there would be no Donald Trump. If the Republican party fought twice as hard against Obama as they do Trump, there would be no Donald Trump. There would be no need for violent rhetoric and protests, or name calling. Yes, we recognize Trump is not for everyone, and that people have their own standards to adhere to, and we respect that. But the rest of us, in voting for a man that many of us don't think shares our values, we voted for him in hopes he can help us uphold them.

We voted for Trump for various reasons, and not because we're simply angry. This is a cliche saying, but it rings true today: "you don't know a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes." I myself don't think some of you understand us, or are unable to sympathize with us because we simply voted for Trump. Some of us are desperate. Some of us are afraid. Some of us don't see any way out other than Trump. Some of us are indeed angry; some of us are sick and tired, most of us have gone cycle after cycle voting for one person after the other, hoping that he or she would be the one. And quite frankly, if you're like me, some of us have simply just given up. We are not acting in a fit of pique, this is a movement. We have tried playing by the rules and our reward was naught.

We are American citizens from all walks of life, from business owners, entrepreneurs, to soldiers and veterans, police, and firefighters, we're moms and dads with children scraping to get by, we're employed or unemployed, rich and poor, young and old, we consist of a diverse collection of races and ethnic backgrounds. We're college graduates, high school dropouts, professors and teachers, highly educated or under educated. We're Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We are all human beings. As Shakespeare put it in his play, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1:

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

Did you write that yourself, or found it on the net somewhere?

I wrote that.

Then why are you not writing for CK in the blog thingy?
You have talent in writing. Start writing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm probably going to be insulted, chastised, accused of hypocrisy in some sort of way, inciting double standards or whatnot for this post. For those of you not inclined to reading at least a minute or two, please, pass this post by.

But whatever you do, stop looking down on us, please.

Yes, I/we voted for Trump. Not all of us as Trump supporters voted for him because he "tells it like it is" or because we want to stick it to the "establishment." But does that warrant every other person who didn't looking down on us like we're a collective of brainless zombies? We're more often than not referred to in many sorts of derogatory ways, like "stupid", "un-American", "unintelligent", "Nazis", "Drumpfs", "Trumpettes", "racists" "pigs" or what have you. We're not idiots. We're smart people. We have the ability to think, to deduce, to reason. We don't deserve to be labeled. We're not monsters or automatons.

We don't deserve to be blamed for every Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides it would be cute to throw a left hook at or threaten to kill someone during a Trump rally. Violence is wrong, and yes, Trump is wrong for using inciteful rhetoric, though what happened in Chicago a couple nights back was not his fault, like it or not. He had just as much right to speak as the protesters did. But I digress.

Most of us value civility, but to hear the media and everyone else, were out there looking for a fight. We're not members of the Schutzstaffel (The Nazi SS) looking to round up Muslims, Hispanics, or African Americans from their homes in the night, just so we can slit their throats in a perverted sense of superiority. We don't play the knockout game.

It's as simple as this. If the Republican party had done the job we had elected them to do, there would be no Donald Trump. If the Republican party fought twice as hard against Obama as they do Trump, there would be no Donald Trump. There would be no need for violent rhetoric and protests, or name calling. Yes, we recognize Trump is not for everyone, and that people have their own standards to adhere to, and we respect that. But the rest of us, in voting for a man that many of us don't think shares our values, we voted for him in hopes he can help us uphold them.

We voted for Trump for various reasons, and not because we're simply angry. This is a cliche saying, but it rings true today: "you don't know a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes." I myself don't think some of you understand us, or are unable to sympathize with us because we simply voted for Trump. Some of us are desperate. Some of us are afraid. Some of us don't see any way out other than Trump. Some of us are indeed angry; some of us are sick and tired, most of us have gone cycle after cycle voting for one person after the other, hoping that he or she would be the one. And quite frankly, if you're like me, some of us have simply just given up. We are not acting in a fit of pique, this is a movement. We have tried playing by the rules and our reward was naught.

We are American citizens from all walks of life, from business owners, entrepreneurs, to soldiers and veterans, police, and firefighters, we're moms and dads with children scraping to get by, we're employed or unemployed, rich and poor, young and old, we consist of a diverse collection of races and ethnic backgrounds. We're college graduates, high school dropouts, professors and teachers, highly educated or under educated. We're Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We are all human beings. As Shakespeare put it in his play, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1:

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

Did you write that yourself, or found it on the net somewhere?

I wrote that.

Then why are you not writing for CK in the blog thingy?
You have talent in writing. Start writing.

Thank you for the compliment, Gracie. And I dunno how I get into that section. I'll talk to him about it.

 

[Gracie]

cereal_killer

There ya go. good luck! You really are good.

 

[OKTexas]

And when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, you make my point.

You don't like Trump's attitude, but you do quite the Trump impression yourself, you have little room to lecture me about my logic.

I think Trump's attitude is great in the business world. I'll argue on his behalf all the way tomorrow on how much of a great business man he is.

Unfortunately, the President isn't a business man...different positions have different considerations. Generally, if you are egotistical or arrogant it IS a huge downside for a politician. You aren't going to get many world leaders to side on your behalf...in fact, you might offend a few of them into arming against you. Some people, with intellect, can discern the difference between different situations and different positions. Such is the case here where, in the position of being president, being arrogant is a huge negative. You, on the other hand, not only hate arrogance as a generality, but you have a guy displaying said arrogance in one of the worst positions to display it...but you support him. Sad, sad day for your logical train. I'd go so far to say that personality and perception of personality is so important that you could almost write off Trump as a candidate based solely upon his arrogance, not even considering his radical and absurd stances.

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

Again, I'm glad you watch Fox News exclusively. I'm not doubting your ability to pick out soundbites and quotes and color them in the light you want to. I never have questioned you, nor the red media's, ability to do so. What I have questioned is whether or not you actually digest media that isn't biased or even biased AGAINST your viewpoints in order to get a more accurate picture of events? Even me, as a liberal, I digest a lot of Fox News media on top of my normal media sources which tend to be AP, or international reporting organizations.

I suppose I have to repeat myself here. If you were to even attempt to have an unbiased viewpoint, you'd realize that Obama doesn't have an attitude of arrogance or egotism. Does he seem a bit unrelatable? Sure. Common folk respond more resoundingly to somebody with more basic vocabulary speaking in short, soundbyte style cadence, with a lot of repetition...that doesn't even come close to how Obama speaks.

Like most regressives, assumptions seem to come very easily to you. What you disregard is your lack of any basis in fact to make the assumptions. As for my writing style it comes from 20+ years in the military where you're required to get to the point.

The way your dear leader speaks qualifies him to be a talking head on the evening news because he performs with a teleprompter very well. Get him away from the prompter or his memorized talking points and he stumbles all over himself. I find him to be a totally egocentric ass, that has done absolutely nothing I find admirable.

 

[Never3ndr]

I think Trump's attitude is great in the business world. I'll argue on his behalf all the way tomorrow on how much of a great business man he is.

Unfortunately, the President isn't a business man...different positions have different considerations. Generally, if you are egotistical or arrogant it IS a huge downside for a politician. You aren't going to get many world leaders to side on your behalf...in fact, you might offend a few of them into arming against you. Some people, with intellect, can discern the difference between different situations and different positions. Such is the case here where, in the position of being president, being arrogant is a huge negative. You, on the other hand, not only hate arrogance as a generality, but you have a guy displaying said arrogance in one of the worst positions to display it...but you support him. Sad, sad day for your logical train. I'd go so far to say that personality and perception of personality is so important that you could almost write off Trump as a candidate based solely upon his arrogance, not even considering his radical and absurd stances.

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

Again, I'm glad you watch Fox News exclusively. I'm not doubting your ability to pick out soundbites and quotes and color them in the light you want to. I never have questioned you, nor the red media's, ability to do so. What I have questioned is whether or not you actually digest media that isn't biased or even biased AGAINST your viewpoints in order to get a more accurate picture of events? Even me, as a liberal, I digest a lot of Fox News media on top of my normal media sources which tend to be AP, or international reporting organizations.

I suppose I have to repeat myself here. If you were to even attempt to have an unbiased viewpoint, you'd realize that Obama doesn't have an attitude of arrogance or egotism. Does he seem a bit unrelatable? Sure. Common folk respond more resoundingly to somebody with more basic vocabulary speaking in short, soundbyte style cadence, with a lot of repetition...that doesn't even come close to how Obama speaks.

Like most regressives, assumptions seem to come very easily to you. What you disregard is your lack of any basis in fact to make the assumptions. As for my writing style it comes from 20+ years in the military where you're required to get to the point.

The way your dear leader speaks qualifies him to be a talking head on the evening news because he performs with a teleprompter very well. Get him away from the prompter or his memorized talking points and he stumbles all over himself. I find him to be a totally egocentric ass, that has done absolutely nothing I find admirable.

If you would actually read my posts rather than responding to what you THINK I said, you would have realized that I've already stated that I'm not a fan of Obama...where do you equate "not a fan" into me considering him a "dear leader". Are you using some sort of obscure English dialect where those are synonyms?

Also, you do realize that the regressive left is actually a sub-faction of the left, correct? Not everybody on the left wing is a regressive, just like not everybody on the right wing is part of the Tea Party.

Edit: Not sure what military you were in, but in the Marines paperwork was generally not to the point and filled with all sorts of inane formatting and structural requirements tending to make everything awkward, lengthy, and difficult to read.

 

[OKTexas]

You could insert maobama in there and everything would apply.

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

Again, I'm glad you watch Fox News exclusively. I'm not doubting your ability to pick out soundbites and quotes and color them in the light you want to. I never have questioned you, nor the red media's, ability to do so. What I have questioned is whether or not you actually digest media that isn't biased or even biased AGAINST your viewpoints in order to get a more accurate picture of events? Even me, as a liberal, I digest a lot of Fox News media on top of my normal media sources which tend to be AP, or international reporting organizations.

I suppose I have to repeat myself here. If you were to even attempt to have an unbiased viewpoint, you'd realize that Obama doesn't have an attitude of arrogance or egotism. Does he seem a bit unrelatable? Sure. Common folk respond more resoundingly to somebody with more basic vocabulary speaking in short, soundbyte style cadence, with a lot of repetition...that doesn't even come close to how Obama speaks.

Like most regressives, assumptions seem to come very easily to you. What you disregard is your lack of any basis in fact to make the assumptions. As for my writing style it comes from 20+ years in the military where you're required to get to the point.

The way your dear leader speaks qualifies him to be a talking head on the evening news because he performs with a teleprompter very well. Get him away from the prompter or his memorized talking points and he stumbles all over himself. I find him to be a totally egocentric ass, that has done absolutely nothing I find admirable.

If you would actually read my posts rather than responding to what you THINK I said, you would have realized that I've already stated that I'm not a fan of Obama...where do you equate "not a fan" into me considering him a "dear leader". Are you using some sort of obscure English dialect where those are synonyms?

Also, you do realize that the regressive left is actually a sub-faction of the left, correct? Not everybody on the left wing is a regressive, just like not everybody on the right wing is part of the Tea Party.

Edit: Not sure what military you were in, but in the Marines paperwork was generally not to the point and filled with all sorts of inane formatting and structural requirements tending to make everything awkward, lengthy, and difficult to read.

Oh I've seen what you said, but your rigorous defense tells a different story. Also once you been around a while, you'll find I tend to give nicknames to people I don't respect.

Yes I realize a lot, one is, not all stateist are leftist, but all leftist are stateist, that's about as regressive as it gets in my book.

Military regulations and manuals can get very cumbersome, but when writing personnel evaluations, after action reports, command briefings and awards recommendations there's not much room for flowery statements.

 

[Never3ndr]

That would certainly be true if my only news source was something radically biased such as Fox News. Fortunately, to anybody who even attempts to have an unbiased view (I'm a liberal but no fan of Obama), you would, at the very least, know that Obama isn't even a business man and that the guy is far from having the attitude of somebody arrogant or egotistical. Now, for sure, he does tend to be pretty intellectual and witty which makes him a bit unrelatable to a lot of people, and is probably one of his larger flaws when it comes to communicating to the population, in general.

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

Again, I'm glad you watch Fox News exclusively. I'm not doubting your ability to pick out soundbites and quotes and color them in the light you want to. I never have questioned you, nor the red media's, ability to do so. What I have questioned is whether or not you actually digest media that isn't biased or even biased AGAINST your viewpoints in order to get a more accurate picture of events? Even me, as a liberal, I digest a lot of Fox News media on top of my normal media sources which tend to be AP, or international reporting organizations.

I suppose I have to repeat myself here. If you were to even attempt to have an unbiased viewpoint, you'd realize that Obama doesn't have an attitude of arrogance or egotism. Does he seem a bit unrelatable? Sure. Common folk respond more resoundingly to somebody with more basic vocabulary speaking in short, soundbyte style cadence, with a lot of repetition...that doesn't even come close to how Obama speaks.

Like most regressives, assumptions seem to come very easily to you. What you disregard is your lack of any basis in fact to make the assumptions. As for my writing style it comes from 20+ years in the military where you're required to get to the point.

The way your dear leader speaks qualifies him to be a talking head on the evening news because he performs with a teleprompter very well. Get him away from the prompter or his memorized talking points and he stumbles all over himself. I find him to be a totally egocentric ass, that has done absolutely nothing I find admirable.

If you would actually read my posts rather than responding to what you THINK I said, you would have realized that I've already stated that I'm not a fan of Obama...where do you equate "not a fan" into me considering him a "dear leader". Are you using some sort of obscure English dialect where those are synonyms?

Also, you do realize that the regressive left is actually a sub-faction of the left, correct? Not everybody on the left wing is a regressive, just like not everybody on the right wing is part of the Tea Party.

Edit: Not sure what military you were in, but in the Marines paperwork was generally not to the point and filled with all sorts of inane formatting and structural requirements tending to make everything awkward, lengthy, and difficult to read.

Oh I've seen what you said, but your rigorous defense tells a different story. Also once you been around a while, you'll find I tend to give nicknames to people I don't respect.

Yes I realize a lot, one is, not all stateist are leftist, but all leftist are stateist, that's about as regressive as it gets in my book.

Military regulations and manuals can get very cumbersome, but when writing personnel evaluations, after action reports, command briefings and awards recommendations there's not much room for flowery statements.

FYI, just because I'm saying he isn't arrogant or egotistical doesn't mean that I'm his supporter? Again, we get into the area of trying to have an unbiased, rather than biased, viewpoint. That's like if you were to sit around and tell me that Obama is the best president we've ever had...I'd argue against that too, and pretty fiercely. However, that doesn't mean that I absolutely hate him. You cannot take the polar opposite of your opinion and assume that everybody that isn't with you must be in that polar opposite of the spectrum. You do realize that there are lot of inbetween areas right?

I don't think you and I are using regressive in the same understanding. The understanding that it is currently being used in higher academia is to refer to the extreme segment of progressives so intent on espousing "rights" for minorities that they actually trample upon the rights of all others. Common examples are the people in the BLM movement, modern feminists, etc. I think you use the term regressive to refer to something like communism (you use the term Stateist, which I'm pretty unfamiliar with and, at least by google, looks to have been coined by Ayn Rand, so please define what you mean if it isn't something like communism). Anyways, you cannot just coin your own understanding of a word. If you are going to use Regressive (which is actually a thing) please use it correctly.

That probably depends on your command. Generally, flowery statements were pretty recommended in evals and awards, maybe not as much in more formal reports and briefings, but those tended to be tied down by stringent formatting and structural requirements rather than just focusing on the main points and leaving the details out or upon request.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Stop looking down on us, please."

That you perceive being 'looked down upon' would indicate that on some level you realize that you're wrong to support Trump.

And you'd be correct.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks for the belly laugh, I needed it. Who said to John McCain: I won, you lost, would that have been your intellectual dear leader or Trump? Who said: argue with them, get in their faces, we need to punish our enemies, if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun, all, and many more can be attributed to one person. Who would that be?

Again, I'm glad you watch Fox News exclusively. I'm not doubting your ability to pick out soundbites and quotes and color them in the light you want to. I never have questioned you, nor the red media's, ability to do so. What I have questioned is whether or not you actually digest media that isn't biased or even biased AGAINST your viewpoints in order to get a more accurate picture of events? Even me, as a liberal, I digest a lot of Fox News media on top of my normal media sources which tend to be AP, or international reporting organizations.

I suppose I have to repeat myself here. If you were to even attempt to have an unbiased viewpoint, you'd realize that Obama doesn't have an attitude of arrogance or egotism. Does he seem a bit unrelatable? Sure. Common folk respond more resoundingly to somebody with more basic vocabulary speaking in short, soundbyte style cadence, with a lot of repetition...that doesn't even come close to how Obama speaks.

Like most regressives, assumptions seem to come very easily to you. What you disregard is your lack of any basis in fact to make the assumptions. As for my writing style it comes from 20+ years in the military where you're required to get to the point.

The way your dear leader speaks qualifies him to be a talking head on the evening news because he performs with a teleprompter very well. Get him away from the prompter or his memorized talking points and he stumbles all over himself. I find him to be a totally egocentric ass, that has done absolutely nothing I find admirable.

If you would actually read my posts rather than responding to what you THINK I said, you would have realized that I've already stated that I'm not a fan of Obama...where do you equate "not a fan" into me considering him a "dear leader". Are you using some sort of obscure English dialect where those are synonyms?

Also, you do realize that the regressive left is actually a sub-faction of the left, correct? Not everybody on the left wing is a regressive, just like not everybody on the right wing is part of the Tea Party.

Edit: Not sure what military you were in, but in the Marines paperwork was generally not to the point and filled with all sorts of inane formatting and structural requirements tending to make everything awkward, lengthy, and difficult to read.

Oh I've seen what you said, but your rigorous defense tells a different story. Also once you been around a while, you'll find I tend to give nicknames to people I don't respect.

Yes I realize a lot, one is, not all stateist are leftist, but all leftist are stateist, that's about as regressive as it gets in my book.

Military regulations and manuals can get very cumbersome, but when writing personnel evaluations, after action reports, command briefings and awards recommendations there's not much room for flowery statements.

FYI, just because I'm saying he isn't arrogant or egotistical doesn't mean that I'm his supporter? Again, we get into the area of trying to have an unbiased, rather than biased, viewpoint. That's like if you were to sit around and tell me that Obama is the best president we've ever had...I'd argue against that too, and pretty fiercely. However, that doesn't mean that I absolutely hate him. You cannot take the polar opposite of your opinion and assume that everybody that isn't with you must be in that polar opposite of the spectrum. You do realize that there are lot of inbetween areas right?

I don't think you and I are using regressive in the same understanding. The understanding that it is currently being used in higher academia is to refer to the extreme segment of progressives so intent on espousing "rights" for minorities that they actually trample upon the rights of all others. Common examples are the people in the BLM movement, modern feminists, etc. I think you use the term regressive to refer to something like communism (you use the term Stateist, which I'm pretty unfamiliar with and, at least by google, looks to have been coined by Ayn Rand, so please define what you mean if it isn't something like communism). Anyways, you cannot just coin your own understanding of a word. If you are going to use Regressive (which is actually a thing) please use it correctly.

That probably depends on your command. Generally, flowery statements were pretty recommended in evals and awards, maybe not as much in more formal reports and briefings, but those tended to be tied down by stringent formatting and structural requirements rather than just focusing on the main points and leaving the details out or upon request.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the dear leader, I find him un-American, arrogant, egotistical and narcissistic.

Also in my book, regressives and stateist are two sides of the same coin, separated me mere degrees. Both think government is the answer to all ills and government force is just, even at the expense of basic liberties. Recent events have only reinforced these concepts. Flip the coin, same results.

My last 6 years in the service, I did quarterly briefings at the brigade and Army command levels, though heavily formatted the numbers and comments were reduced to bottom line numbers and bullet comments. Of course we were there to answer any questions.

 

[Never3ndr]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the dear leader, I find him un-American, arrogant, egotistical and narcissistic.

Also in my book, regressives and stateist are two sides of the same coin, separated me mere degrees. Both think government is the answer to all ills and government force is just, even at the expense of basic liberties. Recent events have only reinforced these concepts. Flip the coin, same results.

My last 6 years in the service, I did quarterly briefings at the brigade and Army command levels, though heavily formatted the numbers and comments were reduced to bottom line numbers and bullet comments. Of course we were there to answer any questions.

Fair enough.

On regressives, I actually disagree. I'd actually say that a lot of regressives are conflicted over whether or not bigger government is better. I've heard them both look to government to enforce absurd standards to reduce "inequality" (as they see it, not saying what they see actually exists), as well as look to tear down government because they see it as enforcing standards that build walls and enforce structural inequality. I honestly see regressives as a bunch of idiots that don't know what they really want, but they just know they are really mad about it.

That actually explains things, like I said it probably depends on your command. I've only been involved in more of the ground level operations, but I have talked to some acquaintances that have worked in high commands, like the Pentagon, and they say something similar to that, from the Pentagon I've heard that a lot of things are demanded to fit on 1-page for a quick overview (with the detailed report available / attached).

 

[OKTexas]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the dear leader, I find him un-American, arrogant, egotistical and narcissistic.

Also in my book, regressives and stateist are two sides of the same coin, separated me mere degrees. Both think government is the answer to all ills and government force is just, even at the expense of basic liberties. Recent events have only reinforced these concepts. Flip the coin, same results.

My last 6 years in the service, I did quarterly briefings at the brigade and Army command levels, though heavily formatted the numbers and comments were reduced to bottom line numbers and bullet comments. Of course we were there to answer any questions.

Fair enough.

On regressives, I actually disagree. I'd actually say that a lot of regressives are conflicted over whether or not bigger government is better. I've heard them both look to government to enforce absurd standards to reduce "inequality" (as they see it, not saying what they see actually exists), as well as look to tear down government because they see it as enforcing standards that build walls and enforce structural inequality. I honestly see regressives as a bunch of idiots that don't know what they really want, but they just know they are really mad about it.

That actually explains things, like I said it probably depends on your command. I've only been involved in more of the ground level operations, but I have talked to some acquaintances that have worked in high commands, like the Pentagon, and they say something similar to that, from the Pentagon I've heard that a lot of things are demanded to fit on 1-page for a quick overview (with the detailed report available / attached).

The thing about regressives, they never demand less government, they just demand government that bends to their will. As you can see form current events, they are willing to do it by any means necessary.