Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Millions of people, even in country like USA are not educated or informed enough to be able to vote with reason. People are not born with abilities to really decide what is best for them, some learn it, some not...
But luckily there is Avin Wargunnson from PCMDaily who always know what's best for everyone.
(Not only directed at you) I think it's extremely arrogant to say people are stupid, just because they didn't vote as you would've liked. Even if they are stupid or uneducated, they are smart enough to see, that with the current policies, they are coming of worse and worse. If the majority of people would be happy with their jobs/living,.. a candidate like Trump would never have a chance, the same goes for movements in Europe like Le Pen, Brexit, .. The reason for increasingly unhappiness is for a major part politics from the last decades, at least the affected people identify it as that. Trump might be a moron and his voters might not benefit from his policies, but at least he is something different than the politicans before, that are held responsible for lots of people's misfortune. Voting Hillary would definitely have not resulted in any turn of the trend for them.
Regardless of that, I also think Trump is less lunatic than how he is portrayed in the media. As a non American, I have quite high hopes in his foreign policies, especially I hope for an improvement of the relationship between USA and Russia, for which there would have been no chance if Hillary was elected.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Millions of people, even in country like USA are not educated or informed enough to be able to vote with reason. People are not born with abilities to really decide what is best for them, some learn it, some not...
But luckily there is Avin Wargunnson from PCMDaily who always know what's best for everyone.
(Not only directed at you) I think it's extremely arrogant to say people are stupid, just because they didn't vote as you would've liked. Even if they are stupid or uneducated, they are smart enough to see, that with the current policies, they are coming of worse and worse. If the majority of people would be happy with their jobs/living,.. a candidate like Trump would never have a chance, the same goes for movements in Europe like Le Pen, Brexit, .. The reason for increasingly unhappiness is for a major part politics from the last decades, at least the affected people identify it as that. Trump might be a moron and his voters might not benefit from his policies, but at least he is something different than the politicans before, that are held responsible for lots of people's misfortune. Voting Hillary would definitely have not resulted in any turn of the trend for them.
Regardless of that, I also think Trump is less lunatic than how he is portrayed in the media. As a non American, I have quite high hopes in his foreign policies, especially I hope for an improvement of the relationship between USA and Russia, for which there would have been no chance if Hillary was elected.
What I have been saying for the last 3 pages. Welcome to the debate
I see that Unfortunately some people have resorted to name calling, which is a shame. If you are "tired of arguing" then just don't post, don't start calling people names. I've never said anything personal to anyone, I've simply argued my opinion. If you don't agree then I respect that. But don't start calling people who you don't agree with names. That's what started this whole thing off in the first place with anti-trump people calling Trump voters stupid, simply because they don't agree with them.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
I think the ultimate point of the past few pages should come down to just giving Trump a few months/years to see what exactly he does. He could have just been saying all the things he said so people would vote for him, thinking change would actually come.
PCM.Daily Survivor Season 2 Fan Favorite Winner
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021, 2024
Bikex wrote:
Even if they are stupid or uneducated, they are smart enough to see, that with the current policies, they are coming of worse and worse. If the majority of people would be happy with their jobs/living,.. a candidate like Trump would never have a chance, the same goes for movements in Europe like Le Pen, Brexit, .. The reason for increasingly unhappiness is for a major part politics from the last decades, at least the affected people identify it as that. Trump might be a moron and his voters might not benefit from his policies, but at least he is something different than the politicans before, that are held responsible for lots of people's misfortune. Voting Hillary would definitely have not resulted in any turn of the trend for them.
And there I see a big danger though. Yes. People might be unhappy with the actual politicians and might hope for better. But in especially those that not really trusting Trump to make it better but only to have something new, they go a huge risk there to make it even worse for themselves.
Bikex wrote:Regardless of that, I also think Trump is less lunatic than how he is portrayed in the media. As a non American, I have quite high hopes in his foreign policies, especially I hope for an improvement of the relationship between USA and Russia, for which there would have been no chance if Hillary was elected.
Also there a huge danger. It surely is a bit weird to see Russians celebrating after Trump won. And surely they did not celebrate because USA and Russia could get closer together.
In the end I fear this will be a very one-sided "relationship" and while it might be closer than with Hilton or Obama (and yes, there are good reasons why it was not that close recently), the fear I have is that Trump is just becoming a Marionette of Putin just like Hilton has said in the TV duel. And I am not sure if this is a "relationship" I want to see.
jseadog1 wrote:
I think the ultimate point of the past few pages should come down to just giving Trump a few months/years to see what exactly he does. He could have just been saying all the things he said so people would vote for him, thinking change would actually come.
I agree with the point that now Trump got elected and people must live with that/respect that. In the end the "majority" wanted it this way no matter their reasons behind it or no matter who didn`t even vote and caused such result in the end.
A US guy I know said back in the first Bush Jr. election that it`s crap but it is like it is. When he was elected also the 2nd time for another 4 years, he just said, well 4 years ago we didn`t know better, now it`s our own fault and we have to pay for it.
It could be similar with Trump. Now they might not know better and go the risk. In 4 years the next election might be the one, where you can make "idiotic" votes (Obviously depending on the upcoming 4 years now).
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
You'd swap to a different beer though.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Actually, the point you made about more Americans wanting Trump is false. Trump is our president because he will win the electoral college,
Hillary Clinton won the United States popular vote by over a million people. Similar to what happened in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the presidency.
PCM.Daily Survivor Season 2 Fan Favorite Winner
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021, 2024
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
You'd swap to a different beer though.
I would, but I'm not crazy .
Clinton is like a Fosters. It's a beer, you know it's a beer, but it's not a good beer.
Trump is absinthe. Still alcholic, so it could give you a buzz, but it could also blitz you into a coma.
People are just bored of beer. Shame no-one turned up with a whiskey to steal the show.
jseadog1 wrote:
Actually, the point you made about more Americans wanting Trump is false. Trump is our president because he will win the electoral college,
Hillary Clinton won the United States popular vote by over a million people. Similar to what happened in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the presidency.
If you refer to my post. This is why I put it into "".
But as it`s the US system, he got voted by the needed "mayority".
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
You'd swap to a different beer though.
I would, but I'm not crazy .
Clinton is like a Fosters. It's a beer, you know it's a beer, but it's not a good beer.
Trump is absinthe. Still alcholic, so it could give you a buzz, but it could also blitz you into a coma.
People are just bored of beer. Shame no-one turned up with a whiskey to steal the show.
Whats the matter with Foster's? I like Foster's.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
You'd swap to a different beer though.
I would, but I'm not crazy .
Clinton is like a Fosters. It's a beer, you know it's a beer, but it's not a good beer.
Trump is absinthe. Still alcholic, so it could give you a buzz, but it could also blitz you into a coma.
People are just bored of beer. Shame no-one turned up with a whiskey to steal the show.
Whats the matter with Foster's? I like Foster's.
The conclusion from all of this is that you're crazy.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Yeah, I can see why people want something new, but that doesn't mean the choice they make isn't stupid. Just because the beer I'm drinking isn't very good doesn't mean I'm going to swap it for sodium hypochlorite.
You'd swap to a different beer though.
I would, but I'm not crazy .
Clinton is like a Fosters. It's a beer, you know it's a beer, but it's not a good beer.
Trump is absinthe. Still alcholic, so it could give you a buzz, but it could also blitz you into a coma.
People are just bored of beer. Shame no-one turned up with a whiskey to steal the show.
Whats the matter with Foster's? I like Foster's.
The conclusion from all of this is that you're crazy.
Crazy, or I just like a different beer to you
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
I watched a nice speech by Mr. Daniele Ganser, who's a swiss historian and peace researcher, about 9/11. I liked the fact, that he said, that even he's unsure what happened and that he said, that everyone needs to make up their mind about it themselves, but he also found it ricidulous, that he went from an honored man to a conspricy theroretic within a few days. He said, that 911 could've happened like Bush said it happened, but that there's also loads of evidence for an inside job or a mixture between those two. He named WTC7 as an example. A 3rd building, which collapsed, but wasn't named in the official 9/11 reports. And especially with Bush being a war crime offender and a liar, it's difficult to believe him, in my mind at least.
After everything that has come to light already...may it be, that Iraq has no nuclear weapons, may it be, that there're official papers, that it was even considered to false-flag an attack on Miami and maybe even Washington...a thing as big as 9/11, which all defines us in our way we think, is still worth to be fully researched.
Without 9/11, we wouldn't see a muslim, when we think about a terrorist. Through 9/11, strong stereotypes were born and it could be world changing, if something different comes to light.
ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Where have I said there is any weight behind the climate change theory?
My sole point throughout this entire discussion is that you can't label people stupid because they've voted the way you didn't want.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Where have I said there is any weight behind the climate change theory?
My sole point throughout this entire discussion is that you can't label people stupid because they've voted the way you didn't want.
Maybe I misunderstood. But the point others were making (correct me if I'm wrong), was not that their vote is stupid because it's different; it's stupid because it was a vote for someone with crazy or stupid ideas (climate change denier being the example).
"Being different" isn't enough to qualify as a valid idea.
