KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
Succinct, you nailed it.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
If Steely_D is actually suggesting that we should elect Trump just to let Trump f*ck up and make angry Trump supporters realize the foolishness of their choice, I'm sorry but that's got to be the dumbest idea I've read in at least a year. The GOP should not be allowed to install a fool who'd easily be worse than Dubya aka Worst President Ever. 

BTW—Love Pittsburgh. My brother went to school there. Great city. Love the Steelers (apart from Rapistberger).  

Just watched the video of Trump's invitation to Russia to find Hillary's emails. Bill Shatner could do a perfect Trump parody. 

why do I get the feeling you guys are talking at cross purposes 

 Steely_D wrote: 
You wrote 

Fully half the nation is angry and already intent on terrorizing Clinton for all 4-8 years, obstructing any progress we'd want to make as a nation...
So, if this disgruntled half of America doesn't get Trump into office, we face another decade of gridlock and breath holding and anger. 

I wrote 

Let me get this straight. You say, let's elect Trump because we don't want to be bullied by do-nothing politicians and people angry at America. 

I think I re-phrased your thinking accurately. Let me try again: you think that electing Clinton will lead to gridlock and more anger and that electing Trump will...what? Save us from that gridlock and anger?

As I stated, that idea is ridiculous. Trump has shown that he doesn't understand how Washington works. He doesn't even have a working relationship with his party. He hasn't prepared at all for the most important and perhaps toughest job in the world. He constantly lies and exaggerates about his successes. He's totally screwed people over time and again in business. His disapproval rating is already stratospheric. Every day he mobilizes more Americans against him with his stupidity and bigotry. More people hate Trump than Clinton. He is making goo-goo eyes towards a tyrant who would like to return his country to Stalinism.   

I don't think I missed a goddamned thing about your post. The mere act of writing about eating too many Twinkies as a three year-old should have snapped you out of your "let's elect him" thinking about Trump. In your own words:

Seemed like a good idea, but found out that everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want.  

If you hired someone as sleazy and bombastic as Trump to fix your roof and he unsurprisingly screwed you over with a botched job, you'd be on the horn toot sweet to your lawyer. Your lawyer, upon hearing that you knew Trump had no experience with fixing roofs but hired him anyway, would tell you that story about Twinkies and how everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want.  

You're right: maybe I expected too much of the three-year old you and your childhood gusto for Twinkies. But you're in your 50s now and Steely_D, you should be able to recognize a scam artist like Trump, especially when he stands a good chance of trashing your country. I invite you to think back to your losing battle with the box of Twinkies and reflect that 

everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want.  

Your words, not mine.

You wouldn't enroll in Trump University now if it still existed, would you? Then why would you let this utter flaming douchebag incompetent run your country? I'm sorry, but Trump has no golden solution to gridlock and anger. 

As for referring to Obama as "that other uppity guy" and later saying that you were making a snide reference to the racism he faced, you camouflaged your snideness beautifully. Frankly, I still don't see it.

 kcar wrote: 
That first sentence isn't what I said, so you set up a straw man and then went after it. Plus, you missed some subtleties.

For instance, my Twinkie story is about me when I'm 3-4 years old. It's a bit strange to invoke "experience and commonsense" since the point was that sometimes you give people what they think they want, and then they develop experience from the result. You move from that to telling me I should know he's bad. I do; that was never the point of the post.

And, of course I used uppity in that way. It's what someone else had to say about him after he took office, and I was making a snide reference to the obvious racism that he has been dealing with since he took office. You missed that, and tool me to task for it.

So, I appreciate your reading the post but you missed parts of it. 

 FourFortyEight wrote: 
I said hyperbole three times, I didn't use any though.  Nah, don't kid yourself, if you don't like me after all these years, you never will.  I'm just blunt because I've been doing this too long.  Anyone else here get called a racist or a bigot more than me ?  I say things that others won't and most disagree with.  My perspective has been deemed irrelevant long ago.   What thoughts of mine aren't ignored get taken apart 8 ways to Sunday.  Is what it is.  

I am puzzled by the bolded.  I don't know what I said that would inspire that thought.  Unless it was my criticism of those who play hyperbole police here on these boards and stop discussion in its tracks because they are morally offended by the slightest hint of it or sarcasm for that matter.  If that's it, then oh well, just another day at the office ... fire me.

 Steely_D wrote: 
Let me get this straight. You say, let's elect Trump because we don't want to be bullied by do-nothing politicians and people angry at America.

Let me break the BAD news to you:

1. Trump would face just as much gridlock and anger as Clinton. He doesn't  have the support of his own party. He's already PISSED off the majority of Americans. His disapproval ratings are near 60%. 

2. Trump as President would be a freaking disaster. This thread has gone over and over this. The man consistently boasts of great things and then screws people over with lies, criminal activity and broken promises. Think Trump University and Trump Institute whenever you hear him talk about bringing back jobs to America. 

His own party would dearly love to flush him. He doesn't have the knowledge base to be an effective president. He has no experience in politics which might be OK if he were running for state Congressman. But he's not. He has already alienated our major allies and practically grabbed his ankles when talking about Putin. 

THIS DOUCHEBAG WANTS PUTIN TO INTERFERE IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. HE HAS PRACTICALLY ADMITTED THAT RUSSIAN HACKED THE DNC SERVERS. HE STILL LIKES PUTIN. WHY IS THAT OK WITH YOU? 
 
3. Whoever becomes President is going to face gridlock and will struggle to get major stuff done. That was clear when there was a chance that Rubio, Cruz, Jeb or Bernie was going to be President. 

The Republican party has become so good at doing nothing and blocking progress that it destroyed its own chances of nominating a decent candidate from 17 different choices. Do you really think they're going to pull it together if Trump wins? The GOP is all about gridlock and EPIC FAIL. 

Your story about eating a box of Twinkies and realizing it wasn't such a good idea? Experience and commonsense could have warned you. Your experience and commonsense should be SCREAMING at you right now. GW Bush was a relative non-politician (the Governorship in TX is largely a powerless position). Did you like 9/11, the war in Iraq that we never had to fight, the lost chance to control Afghanistan, the botched response to Hurricane Katrina or the near-total meltdown of our economy?

Dubya's approval rating at the end of his administration was around Nixon's after his resignation. 

Trump would 10x worse than Dubya. 

Final thoughts: "that other uppity guy" you wrote about are you talking about Obama? Obama's about as uppity as a houseplant. Interesting that you chose that word "uppity"; thankfully you don't hear that cliche "uppity n*gger" anymore but I'm wondering if that crossed your mind when you chose that word. Election season is dog-whistling season for both sides. 

4. America doesn't listen to bullies when it elects Presidents. 
 

FourFortyEight wrote: 
Thanks, Dad.

 kurtster wrote: 
You used hyperbole three times, by the way. Everyone's perspective is relevant. You'd be cool to converse with if you weren't so degrading. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Could someone feel my forehead and check if I feel feverish?

Steely_D wrote:  

 Steely_D wrote: 
Steely_D wrote:  
Good god man, you have nailed it.  I've been watching this thread pile up this afternoon and also kudos to noenz for his reply to your NK comment.

On your last thought and your first thought regarding North Korea ... we only know what we know.  If we don't see it we don't know it.  Kudos for your appropriate use of hyperbole with your North Korea remark.  What follows in that thought we could discuss, but that bogs things down for this post.  I do accept your out of the box perspective and apropos hyperbole based upon your recent trip.  Those who focus on hyperbole as a way to deconstruct a thought piss me off.  It can when used properly, set boundaries and ranges for thoughts that otherwise would not be understood as intended.  I did add the (anymore) in your first thought, just because ...

Your second thought is a breath of fresh air, at least for me.  Its an application of common sense amongst other things.  You lived, we lived, and we will live through him as well.  And if he really does a good job, then its a win, win, bonus.  Its quite clear one of two people will be our next POTUS regardless of how anyone feels about it.  I like the way you see this and encourage others to see what you see.
Nice Rx ...

 Steely_D wrote: 
I do not disagree with much of that, but what does that have to do with the media telling lies — which is what your first post stated?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I heard a lot about what would happen when Obama become President.
Most didn't happen.
That being said... it's time to flush the toilet on professional politicians.
And the namby pambyness.

 steeler wrote: 
Pfft. That wasn't in the post at all.
My point is that America isn't as great as we're told. Trump says he'll make us great - but the truth is that Americans need to stand up and start working and taking responsibility.

We're becoming North Korea, a laughing stock of non-greatness while we swagger and boast and chant - but our tech and infrastructure and education and interdependence and freedom all dwindle while dreaming of American Idol or pro athlete or becoming a Kardashian.

 kcar wrote: 
Ignoring him, and focusing on the nation, I think we need to elect him.

Fully half the nation is angry and already intent on terrorizing Clinton for all 4-8 years, obstructing any progress we'd want to make as a nation. They did the same when that other uppity guy took office, from day one: a one.....term....president....

So, if this disgruntled half of America doesn't get Trump into office, we face another decade of gridlock and breath holding and anger.

Once, fifty years ago, my mom let me watch Saturday morning cartoons and eat a full box of Twinkies. I never did that again. Seemed like a good idea, but found out that everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want. 

Let's elect him. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
Are you advocating for no media? For no coverage of what the President or candidates for President are saying? 

 steeler wrote: 
If you didn't turn on the media, would all this stuff ever cross your mind?

 
steeler wrote: 
It's interesting that a megaphone and a funnel are the same basic shape. In fact they could be substituted one for the other...

 kcar wrote: 
heaven forbid