Do You "Hope President Trump Succeeds"?

[Norman]

Trump succeeding means my life gets fucked up.

I do not want he is peddling, if he even knows what he is peddling. I hope he fails.

America being great means your life fails?

Wow...

 

[IsaacNewton]

About two months after Obama took office the Republicans announced their only goal was to keep Obama from doing anything.

This needs to be the default position of the entire Democrat party now, not just now but permanently going forward. I mean it takes some gaul to trash someone 50 million people voted for for 8 straight years and then ask the to support the piece of shit you voted for.

Conservatives you have outed yourselves. You are no longer Americans and you will be treated as such. P.O.Shit trump will be ignored as will the Republicans in Congress. Whatever the pass or attempt to do will be opposed in every way possible.

Congratulations, you are now living in the world you created.

I wish you all the luck with that ... the intransigence of the left has already cost you most of the down-ballot elections. Continued childish tantrums will ensure you lose the rest.

Who cares, you view the entire world as a middle school football game and all you know is 'your team'. Children view life like this. No one cares when an adult hasn't matured past this point, we feel sorry for you.

Rule 4b. When lacking a coherent or cogent counterargument, attack your opponent to deflect attention from your shortfall.

You cannot participate in a discussion, you think foaming some fake psychobabble is 'good stuff'. If you had attempted to form a coherent argument then no problem if you go off the trail a bit, you never do. You go to ignore, thanks for playing.

 

[IsaacNewton]

About two months after Obama took office the Republicans announced their only goal was to keep Obama from doing anything.

But this proves that 'politics' have nothing to do with running the country. "Republican" ... "Democrat" are nothing more than facades, fronting for power/business ventures - generally know as the Military-Industrial Complex. There isn't anything political about it. Simply front men for the purpose of pacifying the population into thinking they have "Democratic choice" rather than "revolution".

First off I want whoever created that bug gif to have to pay a small fine and never be allowed near a computer again! And I disagree to a degree with your assessment. Certainly the MIC has a large influence on politics, especially the Republican party who's every other word is 'we need to increase military spending' even at a time when we spend more than the next top 8 countries combined.

 

[GLASNOST]

First off I want whoever created that bug gif to have to pay a small fine and never be allowed near a computer again! And I disagree to a degree with your assessment. Certainly the MIC has a large influence on politics, especially the Republican party who's every other word is 'we need to increase military spending' even at a time when we spend more than the next top 8 countries combined.

Let me say straight off that my conclusions are that of a layman, I have no particular credentials on the subject. I am observant, however, and this is how I see it.

As I've already said, politics have nothing to do with anything on the subject because everything is tied to the MIC - as you call it. You've thrown me a bone by mentioning the Republican party but by omitting “the other guys” you've made it clear that you do not believe “they” are necessarily on the MIC payroll. I'll have to take your word for it. But that still doesn't challenge my fundamental belief that it's all about the MIC and 'nothing' (would you agree with 'little'?) to do with straight-up politics. I assume that we are in agreement that corrupted political standards render it invalid as a political entity?

I'll go further out on the limb of unqualified savvy, to say:

1). Bush Jr. was in MIC's pocket long before he took his first baby-steps into the world of 'serious' politics.

2). Obama seems not to have been on the side of the Business Big Boys when he moved his dinning set into the Whine House …. but eventually was made an offer he couldn't refuse ….. and so relented

3). Ms. Hillary was in with the MIC (or equally, non-political business tycoonery) while hubby was still playing Havanas in the Garage with Sweet Cheeks Lewinsky, so there would have been no need to threaten Hilary, had she been elected. She was already dangling on a string and must be deeply embedded to this day.

4). It looks like Trump might be another naïve boy á l'Obama, so it will take some time to coerce him into playing by MIC's rules ….. but I believe it'll be done within the next 2 years.

The bottom line is that I (personally) don't see much political philosophy being wielded in the White House and I don't think there will be any of it, any time soon. That, in any case, is what I meant by my statement in post #58.

Ps. I am pleased that my 'bug' irritates you so much. It's the only attention I get on the forum most days.

 

[OldLady]

I would have to know what he wants, in order to know whether I want it to succeed or fail. I'm not convinced he knows what he wants to accomplish.

I can see why you wouldn't know ... he's only spent 18 months telling you.

Just yesterday, he added the word "amend" to the phrase "repeal and replace Obamacare". Absolutely incredible.

It's already happening and he's not even in office yet.

No honest person can claim to know what Trump wants, outside of his Charlie Sheen-like "winning" thing.
.

Donald Trump is NOT a Republican, never has been, never will be. He's not a conservative. He wooed his crowd with wall building, mass deportations, and re opening rusted out old factories that will never happen. That's how he won.

No one should be surprised that Trump has already flipped on Obamacare. It wasn't long ago that he was on Fox News--the Bill O'reilly show praising Obama's 878 billion dollar economic stimulus bill. Something NO Republican supported.
That Time Donald Trump Praised The Stimulus Package On Fox News

Trump did great on the campaign trail because he was playing in his own ball park. Now he is in the Republican congress & Senate ball park, and he's going to have to play along with them and what they want. If he doesn't he will be the most ineffective (lame duck pos President) in the history of this nation.

Members of the House and Senate have a pretty tough decision to make, and they need to make it pretty quickly:

Do they support a guy who is clearly not a conservative, a guy who is completely unpredictable and who can change his mind on a whim, because if they don't they're fighting their own party's standard bearer?

Or do they stick to their principles and legislate as conservatives, no matter what?

Their party has been stolen right out from under them, by some kind of ersatz "populism" that is as clear as mud.
.

I don't like Trump, but I do like the "clear as mud" thing because I'm sick of Democrats and Republicans both reading from a holy hymnal that doesn't allow novel solutions and compromise. So mud's okay if it gets results.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I can see why you wouldn't know ... he's only spent 18 months telling you.

When you recognize that politicians nearly always campaign one way, then govern differently, nobody can say for certain what Cheeto Jesus will do or will be allowed by congress to do.

 

[GLASNOST]

So there are those who don't want Trump to succeed, you say? I wonder who that might be? It doesn't sound like they care about their nation very much.

 

[IsaacNewton]

First off I want whoever created that bug gif to have to pay a small fine and never be allowed near a computer again! And I disagree to a degree with your assessment. Certainly the MIC has a large influence on politics, especially the Republican party who's every other word is 'we need to increase military spending' even at a time when we spend more than the next top 8 countries combined.

Let me say straight off that my conclusions are that of a layman, I have no particular credentials on the subject. I am observant, however, and this is how I see it.

As I've already said, politics have nothing to do with anything on the subject because everything is tied to the MIC - as you call it. You've thrown me a bone by mentioning the Republican party but by omitting “the other guys” you've made it clear that you do not believe “they” are necessarily on the MIC payroll. I'll have to take your word for it. But that still doesn't challenge my fundamental belief that it's all about the MIC and 'nothing' (would you agree with 'little'?) to do with straight-up politics. I assume that we are in agreement that corrupted political standards render it invalid as a political entity?

I'll go further out on the limb of unqualified savvy, to say:

1). Bush Jr. was in MIC's pocket long before he took his first baby-steps into the world of 'serious' politics.

2). Obama seems not to have been on the side of the Business Big Boys when he moved his dinning set into the Whine House …. but eventually was made an offer he couldn't refuse ….. and so relented

3). Ms. Hillary was in with the MIC (or equally, non-political business tycoonery) while hubby was still playing Havanas in the Garage with Sweet Cheeks Lewinsky, so there would have been no need to threaten Hilary, had she been elected. She was already dangling on a string and must be deeply embedded to this day.

4). It looks like Trump might be another naïve boy á l'Obama, so it will take some time to coerce him into playing by MIC's rules ….. but I believe it'll be done within the next 2 years.

The bottom line is that I (personally) don't see much political philosophy being wielded in the White House and I don't think there will be any of it, any time soon. That, in any case, is what I meant by my statement in post #58.

Ps. I am pleased that my 'bug' irritates you so much. It's the only attention I get on the forum most days.

I do think both parties are influenced by big business but it is not even close. Republicans view the taxpayer treasury as a free money trough for the rich. Period. They have no other agenda. They'll manipulate people on social issues but it is only to gain power so they can funnel money to the wealthy and away from the poor and middle class.

Democrats cozy up to big business but not nearly to the same degree and they do actually make policy to help the poor and middle class.

 

[Spare_change]

About two months after Obama took office the Republicans announced their only goal was to keep Obama from doing anything.

This needs to be the default position of the entire Democrat party now, not just now but permanently going forward. I mean it takes some gaul to trash someone 50 million people voted for for 8 straight years and then ask the to support the piece of shit you voted for.

Conservatives you have outed yourselves. You are no longer Americans and you will be treated as such. P.O.Shit trump will be ignored as will the Republicans in Congress. Whatever the pass or attempt to do will be opposed in every way possible.

Congratulations, you are now living in the world you created.

I wish you all the luck with that ... the intransigence of the left has already cost you most of the down-ballot elections. Continued childish tantrums will ensure you lose the rest.

Who cares, you view the entire world as a middle school football game and all you know is 'your team'. Children view life like this. No one cares when an adult hasn't matured past this point, we feel sorry for you.

Rule 4b. When lacking a coherent or cogent counterargument, attack your opponent to deflect attention from your shortfall.

You cannot participate in a discussion, you think foaming some fake psychobabble is 'good stuff'. If you had attempted to form a coherent argument then no problem if you go off the trail a bit, you never do. You go to ignore, thanks for playing.

Frankly, I find you boring. You pontificate, but you don't prove. You spout endless attacks, but offer no justification.

I suggest that, until you can provide something substantial to the conversation, you just shut up and quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[Lakhota]

Do You "Hope President Trump Succeeds"?

Succeeds at what? Implementing his NaziCon agenda? NO!!!!!

 

[Onyx]

That's why you have other words attached to the word to describe in finer detail...

I am okay with prefixes, but they mean little if the attached word remains ambiguous.

 

[Onyx]

Of course, you use etymology ... that's why you get the word wrong so many times.

Words are constructions. There is no substantively correct way to define words.

However, the way I define words is superior. If you define words by their original usage, as opposed to their popular usage, then you leave no room for ambiguity, confusion, or change.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... If you define words by their original usage, as opposed to their popular usage, then you leave no room for ambiguity, confusion, or change.

I agree with your fundamental gripe. However, here we are communicating on a discussion forum with participants of varying degrees of English comprehension. What good is it to use a word that only 3% of the contributing members understand? I mean, words that you intend to be understood in "their original usage" but 97% of the forum think it means something else?

But that's not the (my) main point. My gripe is that so many members of this forum use words and expression that they they themselves do not understand .... and use them as short-cuts (through their ignorance) and as 'defining statements'. "You're a far leftist' - what the fuck does that mean? I know what left-leaning political convictions are, but the people using these terms (on this forum), do not. Not a single one I've seen so far. If they did understand, none of them would ever have the possibility of using the expression to describe anyone on the forum ... or even to describe any real life American politician we've seen so far. Just within this past week I've been called a "Far-Leftist" for disagreeing with stereotyping international Islam - then called a "Far-Rightest" for criticizing Hillary Clinton's criminal behaviour. Even more perplexing is the fact that neither Trump nor Clinton are "Far"-Anything at all. It is difficult to carry on a dialogue with such people. Is there some other language they understand? If so, maybe it would be better to use that one instead.

 

[Onyx]

..... If you define words by their original usage, as opposed to their popular usage, then you leave no room for ambiguity, confusion, or change.

I agree with your fundamental gripe. However, here we are communicating on a discussion forum with participants of varying degrees of English comprehension. What good is it to use a word that only 3% of the contributing members understand? I mean, words that you intend to be understood in "their original usage" but 97% of the forum think it means something else?

Maintaining intellectual honesty.

I have been in dozens of debates where the crux of the argument centered around a disagreement over a word. Etymological word origins are the only surefire way to define a word without resulting in two opposing conjectural definitions.

If you hadn't noticed, there are dozens of different dictionaries that define words differently. They come out with new editions every couple years too, because their definitions are based on how they believe the majority of people use a word at that time. You can see how that is problematic.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I always hoped obambam failed. Now everything he did has to be dismantled. I certainly hope Trump succeeds in tearing it all down.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Depends on the issue
Want him to succeed on trade, job creation and infrastructure
Don't want him to succeed on throwing granny onto the street
Don't want him to succeed on destroy our environment
Don't want him to succeed cutting science or the safetynet.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... If you hadn't noticed, there are dozens of different dictionaries that define words differently.

I have noticed. Whenever I need to be sure of the definition of a word that I'm not very familiar with, I avoid Merriam-Webster like a rabid dog. Not only does it take urban usage too seriously, but it can't even define words in clean-cut terms ... leaving huge gaps to interpretation.

They come out with new editions every couple years too, because their definitions are based on how they believe the majority of people use a word at that time. You can see how that is problematic.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

..... If you define words by their original usage, as opposed to their popular usage, then you leave no room for ambiguity, confusion, or change.

I agree with your fundamental gripe. However, here we are communicating on a discussion forum with participants of varying degrees of English comprehension. What good is it to use a word that only 3% of the contributing members understand? I mean, words that you intend to be understood in "their original usage" but 97% of the forum think it means something else?

But that's not the (my) main point. My gripe is that so many members of this forum use words and expression that they they themselves do not understand .... and use them as short-cuts (through their ignorance) and as 'defining statements'. "You're a far leftist' - what the fuck does that mean? I know what left-leaning political convictions are, but the people using these terms (on this forum), do not. Not a single one I've seen so far. If they did understand, none of them would ever have the possibility of using the expression to describe anyone on the forum ... or even to describe any real life American politician we've seen so far. Just within this past week I've been called a "Far-Leftist" for disagreeing with stereotyping international Islam - then called a "Far-Rightest" for criticizing Hillary Clinton's criminal behaviour. Even more perplexing is the fact that neither Trump nor Clinton are "Far"-Anything at all. It is difficult to carry on a dialogue with such people. Is there some other language they understand? If so, maybe it would be better to use that one instead.

Or maybe you don't understand FAR left thinking.

The Founders were THE standard by which we judge. They define "moderate."

It's about GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER THE INDIVIDUAL.

Communism and Socialism are "far left" ideologies (idiotologies).

Hillary and Obama are both "far left."

Now you know.

 

[Nia88]

I want him to do well. But he's previous statements and actions say otherwise. I pray that I am wrong about him.

 

[GLASNOST]

Or maybe you don't understand FAR left thinking.

I am from a country where "Far-Left" is not a dirty word. Nor is "Socialism" - "Communism" - or "Conservatism". I am confident in saying that my understanding of the difference between "Left" and "Far-Left" is most likely sharper than yours'.

Hillary and Obama are both "far left."

Ha-ha!