General US Politics

[Lushen]

triple post...

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Lushen]

Ok wtf is going on.  My posts keep duplicating.  Like at first there were only two.  Then there were three.  Now there are four. Its like everytime I refresh there's another post....

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Lushen]

19 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Can you hop off this CDC story? AFAIK you’re not seeing the issue because now it’s basicallh being politically correct for the Republican Party, instead of censorship, which is almost as bad. Like Jesus Christ you cannot get over this Democrat or liberal hate boner because you’re some spoiled rich kid who just wants to be right about something for once. Like seriously that’s always half your content, since you were shockingly silent over the Alabama elections because you probably would’ve voted Moore if you had the chance. You didn’t even respond to my point about how you’re always insistent on partisan bickering — you demonize anything vaguely left leaning (colleges, some democrats, quite a bit of this thread).

In fact they did it to abortion MAYBE to appease republican senators who still need kiddy gloves to talk about LGBT+ and women’s issues.

Regardless, the 529 amendment seems meaningless unless you’re in the upper middle class or in the upper class. There is no way that benefits elementary education for working or middle class people, and it’s not even relevant that a democrat was on board with a single amendment when the bill is still a catastrophe if you’re not rich.

Yes.  My disapproval of the CDC story has nothing to do with the fact that it was literally fake news on two occasions and very few of the people spreading it have corrected the story.  It's just becuse I don't like what it says. 

Republicans did not ask for the political correctness, nor do they want it.  The CDC can do whatever they want, it does not represent the opinions of the republican party.  I could tell you that I'm going to stop using the world Capitalism because I think it triggers you.  Does that mean that you're a crybaby?  Of course not.  

You want me to "hop off" the CDC story because you know its fake and don't like hearing that there's such a thing as fake news and liberal bias in the media.  

 

As for the 529, its about letting people do whatever they want with their money.  It can ALSO be used to finance homeschooling expenses.  I realize that the narrative being pushed by Democrats is that this bill is a "tax scam" for the rich.  But the reality is the brooking institute estimates that 80.4% of the nation will get a tax cut with an average american saving being $2,140.  

How many get a tax increase?  4.8%.  Yea.  Pretty much just the top 1%  in large blue states like California.  Ironic?  

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

It’s not fake news so much as it is misleading. Misleading headlines/content that congresspeople respond to is not fake news, it’s just reactionary. The misleading headline itself was not too far removed from reality. You’re getting outraged over very little, then spreading it to the rest of your false complaints about the Democratic Party. It’s really something to watch, since you never insist on calling people out who are Republicans.

2000 dollars per year is not much for the working class. It’s also still a benefit for the upper class lol, has the CBO even looked at the bill and concluded anything about the long term? The repeal of the individual mandate will increase insurance costs significantly and will screw over mainly the middle and parts of the working class too.

ive read the NYT rundown of it: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/your-money/tax-plan-changes.html

it seems like it basically massively screws people over who have unfortunate things happen to them. If you’re not perfect in life, you’re screwed and I’m currently imagining exactly how much money relatively poor people will lose due to not being able to deduct a lot of their expenses

so it’s pretty much not letting the working class do what they want with their assets in the end, and it definitely doesn’t allow for affordable migration if needed

[Lushen]

Double

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Lushen]

8 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

It’s not fake news so much as it is misleading. Misleading headlines/content that congresspeople respond to is not fake news, it’s just reactionary. The misleading headline itself was not too far removed from reality. You’re getting outraged over very little, then spreading it to the rest of your false complaints about the Democratic Party. It’s really something to watch, since you never insist on calling people out who are Republicans.

Uh, no its fake.  Saying the Trump administration banned certain words is fake.  Not only did the Trump admin have nothing to do with it (nor did Republicans), but it wasnt even a ban.  The headlines weren't misleading they were blatantly false.

Also wtf, you can deduct gambling losses?  Why the hell is that a thing....?

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

Fake news is a) late night talk shows that mock news programs (this has actually been the use of the term that I’ve been accustomed to) and b) outright lies that are put and out false (ie Clinton is running a child sex ring). This was misleading. They did not ban the words but they suggested to not use them otherwise they won’t get anything done; that’s known as a soft ban. Hence, hop off it lol 

[Lushen]

6 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Fake news is a) late night talk shows that mock news programs (this has actually been the use of the term that I’ve been accustomed to) and b) outright lies that are put and out false (ie Clinton is running a child sex ring). This was misleading. They did not ban the words but they suggested to not use them otherwise they won’t get anything done; that’s known as a soft ban. Hence, hop off it lol 

It's also fake news when news organizations publish bad information and fail to remove or correct it.  It may not be fake news but rather a misunderstanding when it is published.  But if it's still there without corrections after two days it is fake.  

The first sentence of the article says they "prohibit" officials from saying these words.  Are you going to tell me it was ok because it was really a soft-prohibit?  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.8db6036d9bb4

This news story is entirely false.  

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

As for the 529, its about letting people do whatever they want with their money.  It can ALSO be used to finance homeschooling expenses.  I realize that the narrative being pushed by Democrats is that this bill is a "tax scam" for the rich.  But the reality is the brooking institute estimates that 80.4% of the nation will get a tax cut with an average american saving being $2,140.  

How many get a tax increase?  4.8%.  Yea.  Pretty much just the top 1%  in large blue states like California.  Ironic?  

I think the main concern is the long-term impact, not how much are we willing to compromise so we can get some lower taxes (and yet still most of the cut is going to go to the already wealthy and adds $1.5 trillion at least to the deficit over ten years, which some conservatives are still pretending they care about). This was one of the things that lead to the market bubble not even 10 years ago.

You'll notice that when tax cuts are in play, nobody asks where we're going to get the money from, unlike whenever healthcare or any other social program is discussed. Well, actually I shouldn't say that because 55% still oppose this particular Republican tax bill because a majority of Americans believes it helps the rich overwhelmingly over their own families.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I think the main concern is the long-term impact, not how much are we willing to compromise so we can get some lower taxes (and yet still most of the cut is going to go to the already wealthy and adds $1.5 trillion at least to the deficit over ten years, which some conservatives are still pretending they care about). This was one of the things that lead to the market bubble not even 10 years ago.

You'll notice that when tax cuts are in play, nobody asks where we're going to get the money from, unlike whenever healthcare or any other social program is discussed. Well, actually I shouldn't say that because 55% still oppose this particular Republican tax bill because a majority of Americans believes it helps the rich overwhelmingly over their own families.

Long term impacts are valid concerns.  Though the same went with Obamacare.  Tax Reform is pretty much a conservative version of Obamacare.  However you feel about the tax cuts now is how conservatives felt about Obamacare.

The idea is that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves in the form of economic growth and businesses returning to the US.  It's questionable whether that will actually happen but that's the main principal.  Also its important to note that extremely high income earners will actually start paying a higher percentage of our overall taxes under this bill than previously.

 

[Time the Crestfallen]

Interesting.

Every vote counts as they say.

[Lord Raven]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

It's also fake news when news organizations publish bad information and fail to remove or correct it.  It may not be fake news but rather a misunderstanding when it is published.  But if it's still there without corrections after two days it is fake.  

The first sentence of the article says they "prohibit" officials from saying these words.  Are you going to tell me it was ok because it was really a soft-prohibit?  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.8db6036d9bb4

This news story is entirely false.  

It’s not entirely false or even mostly false, lol. Soft prohibition is the same thing as a soft ban, so it’s still a directive where they say to ban certain words. The truly hilarious part is someone coming in and saying it’s due to identity politics.

Misleading headlines are still not false even when things change. Misleading headlines is a non-partisan issue. This is not Democrat specific. Stop making the inference that only democrats do this or democrats are the primary people which peddle this. You act as if they’re special but they’re not and it’s ultimately a minor issue compared to the tax plan, but you spent like 5-6 posts on a tirade about the democrats when I didn’t see you make a self-righteous tirade about any single republican politician who has done much worse. Pretty much, stop being a partisan hack and associating every viewpoint here with a viewpoint of a politician who doesn’t actually represent us.

As I said, you need to hop off the high horse, this is misleading but not fake and all it has really done is serve as a conduit for your liberal/left/centrist/Democrat hate boner. You realize how much people criticize you on here, both on and off forum, for basically doing nothing but partisan bullshit for the past few months right? You are really completely unprepared for political discourse because all you give a shit about is right vs wrong, left vs right and one side vs the other. I highly advise you to watch Jon Stewart on Crossfire and re-evaluate how you come across on here, because I think you’re seriously unaware of it.

Also you said capitalism was a trigger word to me or any leftist which is hilarious since I still maintain that capitalism is pretty the optimal economic system. I have not contradicted this at all. The entire Democratic Party happens to agree that capitalism and free markets are the most effective means to ration resources, it just so happens that the argument we make is that the capitalism must be regulated to allow for everyone to have options regardless of the circumstances of birth. They also believe there must be some degree of safety net because things often happen out of our control.

[Lushen]

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

It’s not entirely false or even mostly false, lol. Soft prohibition is the same thing as a soft ban, so it’s still a directive where they say to ban certain words. The truly hilarious part is someone coming in and saying it’s due to identity politics.

Ok what about them saying the Trump admin is responsible?  The trump admin had nothing to do with it.  You are REALLY stretching to make the news story sound accurate.

And I'm not watching a liberal comedian like Jon Stewart (self proclaimed leftist) or Stephen Colbert.  You're calling me a partisan hack and yet you recommend I get my understanding of politics from partisan comedians?  Sorry, but no.   Perhaps you should watch Ben Shapiro so you know how you come across to conservatives.  Or perhaps we can accept that we have different schools of thought and actually discuss them instead of claiming that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

And I'm not watching a liberal comedian like Jon Stewart (self proclaimed leftist) or Stephen Colbert.  You're calling me a partisan hack and yet you recommend I get my understanding of politics from partisan comedians?  Sorry, but no.   Perhaps you should watch Ben Shapiro so you know how you come across to conservatives.  Or perhaps we can accept that we have different schools of thought and actually discuss them instead of claiming that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about.  

A) That you explicitly refuse to watch the Jon Stewart video (or Stephen Colbert for that matter) explicitly because they're liberals kinda proves his point. That you can complain about being called a partisan hack and engage in partisan hack bullshit in the same post without a trace of irony is kind of astounding.

B) Ben Shapiro isn't a comedian; a better example would be asking him to watch a Crowder video, but maybe you're above that at least.

C) Kind of making a lot of assumptions by presuming he hasn't seen a Ben Shapiro video/post/whatever. I'd almost say you're projecting your own partisan bullshit onto the rest of us in order to justify yourself.

D) I've seen enough of Shapiro to know he's just like every other Conservative pundit. His shitty book 'True Allegiance' is proof enough of that. He's just capable of making himself sound smart and presenting himself well.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Phillius the Crestfallen

[Lord Raven]

24 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Ok what about them saying the Trump admin is responsible?  The trump admin had nothing to do with it.  You are REALLY stretching to make the news story sound accurate.

And I'm not watching a liberal comedian like Jon Stewart (self proclaimed leftist) or Stephen Colbert.  You're calling me a partisan hack and yet you recommend I get my understanding of politics from partisan comedians?  Sorry, but no.   Perhaps you should watch Ben Shapiro so you know how you come across to conservatives.  Or perhaps we can accept that we have different schools of thought and actually discuss them instead of claiming that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about.  

The CDC is a federal agency. It's part of the Trump admin.

Jon Stewart is liberal, but, and I quote

On 12/18/2017 at 2:58 PM, Lushen said:

Because I think its important to look at both sides of the argument.  I don't think its fair to formulate opinions about people without listening to them.  But IDK, maybe I'm just crazy.

Anyway,

It's worth a watch. I can argue this too, but he also demonstrably gets rid of this "left vs right" idea to settle into a more nuanced paradigm. The point is this; a "left vs right" mentality gets you nowhere. Fact-based rhetoric and evidence-based rhetoric trumps party mentality, and identity politics interferes with that. You've gone too deep into identity politics.

As it stands, this is different to Ajit Pai. Ajit Pai's rhetoric does not match reality. Ajit Pai has an agenda and spins arguments in a way to support his agenda, rather than using arguments to create an agenda, considering he's on record basically telling outright lies and quoting false facts. This is why I'm not interested in anything he has to say past his initial repeal of net neutrality, and I've countered his arguments elsewhere (but they were said by other people, not him). Jon Stewart isn't promoting an agenda; he's positing that Crossfire's left vs right mentality is poisonous after being invited onto the show.

And yes, I have indeed seen Ben Shapiro and I've researched some of his arguments. They're also not rooted in reality, but he knows how to spin arguments to promote his agenda.

As for how I come off to conservatives, Anacybele is a conservative and I've had a few rational conversations with her especially as of late (despite her reputation -- I don't mean this as a slight). I'm telling you that you come across negatively towards people, not towards liberals, because the majority of people in this thread are rather centrist on economic issues.

I'm an asshole to you though, partially because you deserve it as a person because all you want to do is win an argument with me. You even said "haha, gotcha!" on something earlier this thread to something that didn't even make sense, which nobody would say if they're trying to actually have discourse rather than win an argument. I've been an asshole to people who don't deserve it, and I acknowledge that personally, but I was nothing but civil to you until I was 3 pages into an argument when you first posted here.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

9 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

A) That you explicitly refuse to watch the Jon Stewart video (or Stephen Colbert for that matter) explicitly because they're liberals kinda proves his point. That you can complain about being called a partisan hack and engage in partisan hack bullshit in the same post without a trace of irony is kind of astounding.

B) Ben Shapiro isn't a comedian; a better example would be asking him to watch a Crowder video, but maybe you're above that at least.

C) Kind of making a lot of assumptions by presuming he hasn't seen a Ben Shapiro video/post/whatever. I'd almost say you're projecting your own partisan bullshit onto the rest of us in order to justify yourself.

D) I've seen enough of Shapiro to know he's just like every other Conservative pundit. His shitty book 'True Allegiance' is a proof enough of that. He's just capable of making himself sound smart and presenting himself well.

A&B)  I don't think any conservatives watch Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.  Just like no liberals watch Stephen Crowder.  I listen to people on both sides (hell, I was just watching Bernie Sanders speak on GOP tax reform), but that doesn't mean I have to watch comedians with partisan bias...  So I said Ben Shapiro because he would be a better choice than Steven Crowder in my view.  

C&D)  I've linked a few Ben Shapiro videos here in the past and he has refused to watch them.  Ben Shapiro in my view is very fair.  Obviously he is conservative.  He doesn't pretend to be unbias, he knows he's very conservative.  But he is very fair.  He criticizes Trump on something on nearly every podcast for the same reasons I criticize Trump.  He also praises Trump when Trump does something right.  He has invented a "Good Trump, Bad Trump" ideology.  

@Lord RavenI understand what you're getting at.  But saying that you should listen to the FCC charimen before criticizing the FCC is very different from telling me I need to watch left-leaning comedians who make jokes for a living to understand the left.  I had a roommate last year who got ALL his news from stephen colbert.  Like literally he would not read or watch anything other than stephen colbert.  

As for the video, I'm not sure what I was supposed to get out of it.  It was just two political hacks accusing the other of being political hacks.

I've listened to both Nancy Pelosi AND Bernie Sanders as well as many other democrats all day today while they were talking before the GOP bill.  It's playing in the background right now.  I just don't get my news from people who make jokes for a living.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Lushen

[eclipse]

4 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I've listened to both Nancy Pelosi AND Bernie Sanders as well as many other democrats all day today while they were talking before the GOP bill.  It's playing in the background right now.  I just don't get my news from people who make jokes for a living.

Here's the thing about political humor: It wouldn't be funny unless there was some truth to it.

[Lushen]

Just now, eclipse said:

Here's the thing about political humor: It wouldn't be funny unless there was some truth to it.

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Stephen Colbert suddenly got a lot more popular when he shifted all his jokes to be about Trump.  I actually found him to be quite funny in a few of his old celebrity interviews (this one is hillarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgUvhNlGV0s).  I don't  find him funny anymore.  While its entirely possible its just because I disagree with him on nearly everything I find that over half of his show is just discussing politics and he spends very little time making good jokes.  The jokes that he does make are like "Donald Trump is an idiot!".

But more specifically, the news section of SNL was always my favorite.  All of it was fabricated, but I always found it to be quite funny.  Didn't ever have any truth to it though.

[Lord Raven]

22 minutes ago, Lushen said:

A&B)  I don't think any conservatives watch Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. 

They definitely watched the Colbert Report.

22 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I understand what you're getting at.  But saying that you should listen to the FCC charimen before criticizing the FCC is very different from telling me I need to watch left-leaning comedians who make jokes for a living.  I had a roommate last year who got ALL his news from stephen colbert.  Like literally he would not read or watch anything other than stephen colbert.  

He wasn't on a comedy show, nor was he acting as a comedian. He was on CNN.

22 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As for the video, I'm not sure what I was supposed to get out of it.  It was just two political hacks accusing the other of being political hacks.

No, Jon Stewart is not a political hack, he's a fake newsman. He makes fun of the news for a living. Fox News Channel is low hanging fruit that he constantly railed against -- and you may be surprised, since maybe you weren't following politics growing up or watching stuff, but Fox News Channel was the establishment then. Now it's much more moderate and Fox News numbers are dipping (and continue to do so), but this was a time when they were the most watched program and they were full of facts that weren't true (including citing polls adding up to 120%) and they were much much more outraged at things. They were also very whiny and petulant when called out.

CNN and MSNBC were apologetic when called out, for the record. It was pretty low hanging fruit and their careers were based around being the anti-Fox News Channel and the anti-Bill O'Reilly. Also, the Colbert Report was watched by many conservatives who thought Stephen Colbert was legitimately a conservative.

Either way, he's making solid points. He's not particularly partisan either given he's critical of every administration, he just happens to be less critical of the Obama administration because they didn't send us into Iraq over bullshit. He'a also less critical of Democrats because Democrats are more or less just incompetent and somewhat corrupt whereas the Republicans are more incompetent and highly corrupt. They also don't have a propaganda wing, whereas FNC has been the right-wing propaganda wing for almost 20-30 years.

Also, the Democrats didn't implement the Southern Strategy whose purpose was to divide the populace and propagandize the populace through dog whistles. He's a partisan hack only if you disregard the entirety of the context behind what he had been doing from 1998 to 2015.

I don't watch Colbert, Seth Myers, Trevor Noah, etc anymore in general because while they're kinda funny, they definitely do follow a highly partisan slant with a solely anti-Trump and anti-Republican model. These jokes get boring over time and unfunny, and my reaction often times is "oh boy, another golden showers joke." This is very annoying to me and unbearable to watch. John Oliver hesitates to keep talking about them but he's forced to because this administration is objectively fucking crazy and also understaffed and unstable. He also focuses on very niche issues. Samantha Bee also does this to less of an extent. Jim Jefferies also does this (though he's hilarious, neither are extremely informative but they've definitely inspired me to look deeper into some specific issues they're talking about, since they're not things I've considered as issues before).

Jon Stewart transcended that by quite a bit, even during the Bush administration. If you think Jon Stewart is partisan, then you really don't know the extent of his career. This guy is 100% willing to go into uncomfortable territory and press issues far away from his desk, as was Colbert-era Stephen Colbert who was a character but a very funny character.

(Also, the Bush administration was crazy -- the Obama administration was sane in comparison. He was there for the latter part of the Clinton administration, but he found footing generally in the absurdity of the 2000 election).

Edited December 20, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Time the Crestfallen]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

A&B)  I don't think any conservatives watch Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.  Just like no liberals watch Stephen Crowder.  I listen to people on both sides (hell, I was just watching Bernie Sanders speak on GOP tax reform), but that doesn't mean I have to watch comedians with partisan bias...  So I said Ben Shapiro because he would be a better choice than Steven Crowder in my view.  

Funny how you say that you listen to people on both sides while specifically refusing to watch a video because it's made by someone on the other side. He's not asking you to watch his entire video library mate, he's posting one video because it's relevant to the current topic, which you should do because you can't really understand the point he's trying to make otherwise.

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

C&D)  I've linked a few Ben Shapiro videos here in the past and he has refused to watch them.  Ben Shapiro in my view is very fair.  Obviously he is conservative.  He doesn't pretend to be unbias, he knows he's very conservative.  But he is very fair.  He criticizes Trump on something on nearly every podcast for the same reasons I criticize Trump.  He also praises Trump when Trump does something right.  He has invented a "Good Trump, Bad Trump" ideology.  

If the bar by which you judge someone's fairness is 'they critcise Trump sometimes', that's not a very high bar to clear. Hell, I'm pretty sure fucking Milo Yiannopoulos has criticised Trump on a few things, and we're talking about a literal neo-nazi who calls Trump 'daddy'. If you wanna judge a person, you judge them by the points they make, and since I mentioned True Allegiance earlier, let's see what else he's written:

-Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinated America's Youth (2004)
-Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is corrupting our future (2005)
-Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV (2011)
-Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America (2013)
The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration (2014)

So no, the only difference between him and say, Sargon of Akkad for example is presentation.

[Lord Raven]

I would like to clarify: I didn't watch your videos because you posted them in place of a point, not as a supplement. I posted Jon Stewart as a supplement. It's not required watching, it's recommended watching.

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Stephen Colbert suddenly got a lot more popular when he shifted all his jokes to be about Trump.  I actually found him to be quite funny in a few of his old celebrity interviews (this one is hillarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgUvhNlGV0s).  I don't  find him funny anymore.  While its entirely possible its just because I disagree with him on nearly everything I find that over half of his show is just discussing politics and he spends very little time making good jokes.  The jokes that he does make are like "Donald Trump is an idiot!".

But more specifically, the news section of SNL was always my favorite.  All of it was fabricated, but I always found it to be quite funny.  Didn't ever have any truth to it though.

I don't need to twist "the sky is blue" to create humor. Part of the reason why there's a bunch of "Trump is an idiot" jokes is because Trump's actions are absolutely baffling to people like me.  Yes, his actions have direct benefit. . .but not for me.  And probably not you, either, unless your family is really rich (in which case, send money, groceries are expensive).

I'm also baffled that you're refusing to watch Jon Stewart on the basis that he's a comedian.  Crossfire isn't a comedy show.  If you truly want to see whether or not his only talent is being funny, then watch that interview.

[Shoblongoo]

53 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Part of the reason why there's a bunch of "Trump is an idiot" jokes is because Trump's actions are absolutely baffling to people like me.  

To reiterate--Trump is not an idiot. He is a con-artist (and a damn good one). He acts the way he acts because he has correctly surmised the level at which the people he is trying to con are to be engaged, if he is to hit his mark. He's operating at a level where 1/3 of the country would swear they had just received the worlds greatest snickers bar if he shat in their mouth, then boycott the Hershey Corporation to protest #FakeChocolate. Viewed in this light? Absolutely nothing he does is baffling. There is a method to the madness. 

[Time the Crestfallen]

4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

To reiterate--Trump is not an idiot.

Why not both (da dada da da)? He's certainly a rather successful con-man, but his post-election actions indicate a clear lack of understanding of the political world.

[eclipse]

6 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

To reiterate--Trump is not an idiot. He is a con-artist (and a damn good one). He acts the way he acts because he has correctly surmised the level at which the people he is trying to con are to be engaged, if he is to hit his mark. He's operating at a level where 1/3 of the country would swear they had just received the worlds greatest snickers bar if he shat in their mouth, then boycott the Hershey Corporation to protest #FakeChocolate. Viewed in this light? Absolutely nothing he does is baffling. There is a method to the madness. 

After hearing a Fox News report where some lady said that Trump was sent by God to unite the nation. . .I can believe this. ;/