A Different Reality.

Jul 2019
7,773
4,609
Georgia

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
40,178
28,039
La La Land North
So is his base half of the voters? Because that is what it took to get elected.
Consider there are Republicans who said "Never Trump", there must be some Dems in there.

Two of his wives were foreign born, immigrants. Yea, he hates immigrants so much he marries them.
Have you heard, his Nazi urges causes him to hate Jews so much he marries them too.

"his real estate lawyer is Jewish, his house counsel is Jewish, his controller is Jewish, his chief of staff, chief financial officer, executive vice president, his first executive vice president – I was his litigator for 15 years,” Jay Goldberg, who worked for Trump from 1990 to 2005, said in an interview."

Here is what amazes me. A good Nazi that surrounds himself with with Jews, family members and advisors, has got to be flat out stupider than a door stop - yet even his most vile haters do not make that accusation.

You really do have some cognitive issues. You believe that tweets is his "primary way of communicating with the American public" - when most Americans never read an actual tweet. Oh, if one is in a news story, I may read one, but I have never in my life been to a twitter sight, and I am probably very typical of Trump supports. I would speculate that most of "his base" does not read twitter. So his primary way of communicating, ignores his base. Yeah, right.

When you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you get your news from twitter, it is a primary source of POTUS communication.

Anyone who trusts the media to inform them is brain dead, but that is an improvement over twitter. For the record, you asked me to use twitter examples to show Dems are excessively hateful of others, so in your mind it is just more than Trump using twitter to communicate, you think his detractors do as well. That is a perverted view of reality.
Said like a good Fox News viewer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Aug 2019
305
32
USA
The people who voted for him were not republicans. They were changed by misinformation and Hillary's demeanor. You also didn't address any of my previous points.

Oh, and we CAN blame the Russians because they DID hack the election.
Here is how I see it.
Your stereotyping and labelling has caused problems with any attempts to think critically.
Immigrants are a subset of USA residents, and you recognize that, good start.
Not all immigrants have the same qualities, but you do not recognize that. You lump all immigrants together, as if they were all alike, without regard for their differences. That kind of thinking leads to bigotry.
Rational individuals know that there are many subgroups among immigrants, and one distinction is especially critical, and important.
Some immigrants acquired residency legally, others, by a different method. Those who violated the law, to become USA residents, do not, and should not, have the same recognition as those who followed the rules, and obeyed the law.
A friend mentioned that these laws that were broken were not so serious. They amounted to little more that running a stop light, and who has not done that.
I pointed out a serious difference. If someone goes through a stop light without stopping, one time - and it is done - a few seconds of their life. An illegal resident is committing an illegal act as long as they remain an illegal resident. Keeping the stop light analogy, it is as if the never stop at a stop light - they go through every single one. That would be a problem.

So you lump all immigrants together, stereotype them, but it does not end there. You expect everyone to do as you do, and label all immigrants the same. you expect all others to either approve of immigrants, or disapprove, no distinction.
For your part, you approve of all immigrants, legality issues mean nothing.
Others, recognize some immigrants have played by the rules, and others have attempted to circumvent legal paths to residency. The say they favor legal residents, but do not care for those who have disobeyed the laws. You say this is not possible. You believe they are unreasonable to recognize differences between the two groups. This is a strong indicator of cognitive difficulties.

I have a very close relative with some serious cognitive problems, and they have similar problems. I love them dearly. The difference between them and you, is that they recognize their problems.

Rational individuals recognize differences among subgroups, and act on that. There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about dividing a group into two subgroups, one desirable, one not. You do not seem to understand that, in this instance, and others.

You steteotype, from what I see, anyone with different opinions than yourself. You decide, by an irrational process, certain unfavorable things about POTUS, then stereotype all of his supporters, thinking they must have all of these same immoral characteristics.
No. Base are the people who still support him today, no matter what he says or does. And will continue to support him no matter what he says or does. A lot of people held their nose and voted for him because he was "not Hillary". There are plenty of people who voted for him who aren't very happy with him today.

I'd say maybe 15-20% of voters make up base (I may be underestimating, but that's just a guess)

maybe look at the "strongly approve" column on a poll for a better estimate

Edit: Gallup is telling me 29% at strongly approve, so we'll go with that percentage for Base (I'm kind of sad/surprised it's this high)

Trump Approval Remains in Low 40s



speaking of Nazis, Hitler may have had Jewish ancestors, but that didn't stop him from hating the Jews. I guess I could have been more specific, but he's encouraging his base to hate immigrants coming in from the Southern border. I didn't even know he had 2 wives who were immigrants, whata freakin hypocrite



I'm not sure I recall saying he hated Jews or encourages his base to hate Jews. This is kind of random



Not sure how I offended you so badly with that remark that you had to resort to a personal attack, but Twitter is his primary source of communication. He dictates foreign policy through twitter for pete's sake. It gets to you and the rest of base whether you read it directly from twitter or not.

enjoy

Trump Twitter Archive



fine, I'll accept any form of repeated communication to the public from one elected Democrat official at the Federal level which repeatedly bashes "the other" whether it be the press, minorities, immigrants, Republicans, whatever.
Here is how I see it.
Your stereotyping and labelling has caused problems with any attempts to think critically.
Immigrants are a subset of USA residents, and you recognize that, good start.
Not all immigrants have the same qualities, but you do not recognize that. You lump all immigrants together, as if they were all alike, without regard for their differences. That kind of thinking leads to bigotry.
Rational individuals know that there are many subgroups among immigrants, and one distinction is especially critical, and important.
Some immigrants acquired residency legally, others, by a different method. Those who violated the law, to become USA residents, do not, and should not, have the same recognition as those who followed the rules, and obeyed the law.

A friend mentioned that these laws that were broken were not so serious. They amounted to little more that running a stop light, and who has not done that.
I pointed out a serious difference. If someone goes through a stop light without stopping, one time - and it is done - a few seconds of their life. An illegal resident is committing an illegal act as long as they remain an illegal resident. Keeping the stop light analogy, it is as if the never stop at a stop light - they go through every single one. That would be a problem.

So you lump all immigrants together, stereotype them, but it does not end there. You expect everyone to do as you do, and label all immigrants the same. you expect all others to either approve of immigrants, or disapprove, no distinction.
For your part, you approve of all immigrants, legality issues mean nothing.
Others, recognize some immigrants have played by the rules, and others have attempted to circumvent legal paths to residency. The say they favor legal residents, but do not care for those who have disobeyed the laws. You say this is not possible. You believe they are unreasonable to recognize differences between the two groups. This is a strong indicator of cognitive difficulties.

I have a very close relative with some serious cognitive problems, and they have similar critical thinking problems. I love them dearly. The difference between them and you, is that they recognize their problems.

Rational individuals recognize differences among subgroups, and act on that. There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about dividing a group into two subgroups, one desirable, one not. You do not seem to understand that, in this instance, and others.

You steteotype, from what I see, anyone with different opinions than yourself. You decide, by an irrational process, certain unfavorable things about POTUS, then stereotype all of his supporters, thinking they must have all of these same immoral characteristics.

Trump has ex-wives that were immigrants, one that was Jewish, and other Jewish relatives, as evidence he is no Nazi. Your reply is that Hitler "may have had Jewish ancestors", and he was a good nazi. In your mind, having a Jewish wife is no more evidence someone does not hate Jews, than possibly having relatives long dead that were Jewish. That is not rational thinking.

For the sake of brevity, I have not directly addressed your other points. At your suggestion, that can change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BondJmsBond
Jul 2019
7,773
4,609
Georgia
Here is how I see it.
Your stereotyping and labelling has caused problems with any attempts to think critically.
Immigrants are a subset of USA residents, and you recognize that, good start.
Not all immigrants have the same qualities, but you do not recognize that. You lump all immigrants together, as if they were all alike, without regard for their differences. That kind of thinking leads to bigotry.
Rational individuals know that there are many subgroups among immigrants, and one distinction is especially critical, and important.
Some immigrants acquired residency legally, others, by a different method. Those who violated the law, to become USA residents, do not, and should not, have the same recognition as those who followed the rules, and obeyed the law.
A friend mentioned that these laws that were broken were not so serious. They amounted to little more that running a stop light, and who has not done that.
I pointed out a serious difference. If someone goes through a stop light without stopping, one time - and it is done - a few seconds of their life. An illegal resident is committing an illegal act as long as they remain an illegal resident. Keeping the stop light analogy, it is as if the never stop at a stop light - they go through every single one. That would be a problem.

So you lump all immigrants together, stereotype them, but it does not end there. You expect everyone to do as you do, and label all immigrants the same. you expect all others to either approve of immigrants, or disapprove, no distinction.
For your part, you approve of all immigrants, legality issues mean nothing.
Others, recognize some immigrants have played by the rules, and others have attempted to circumvent legal paths to residency. The say they favor legal residents, but do not care for those who have disobeyed the laws. You say this is not possible. You believe they are unreasonable to recognize differences between the two groups. This is a strong indicator of cognitive difficulties.

I have a very close relative with some serious cognitive problems, and they have similar problems. I love them dearly. The difference between them and you, is that they recognize their problems.

Rational individuals recognize differences among subgroups, and act on that. There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about dividing a group into two subgroups, one desirable, one not. You do not seem to understand that, in this instance, and others.

You steteotype, from what I see, anyone with different opinions than yourself. You decide, by an irrational process, certain unfavorable things about POTUS, then stereotype all of his supporters, thinking they must have all of these same immoral characteristics.

Here is how I see it.
Your stereotyping and labelling has caused problems with any attempts to think critically.
Immigrants are a subset of USA residents, and you recognize that, good start.
Not all immigrants have the same qualities, but you do not recognize that. You lump all immigrants together, as if they were all alike, without regard for their differences. That kind of thinking leads to bigotry.
Rational individuals know that there are many subgroups among immigrants, and one distinction is especially critical, and important.
Some immigrants acquired residency legally, others, by a different method. Those who violated the law, to become USA residents, do not, and should not, have the same recognition as those who followed the rules, and obeyed the law.

A friend mentioned that these laws that were broken were not so serious. They amounted to little more that running a stop light, and who has not done that.
I pointed out a serious difference. If someone goes through a stop light without stopping, one time - and it is done - a few seconds of their life. An illegal resident is committing an illegal act as long as they remain an illegal resident. Keeping the stop light analogy, it is as if the never stop at a stop light - they go through every single one. That would be a problem.

So you lump all immigrants together, stereotype them, but it does not end there. You expect everyone to do as you do, and label all immigrants the same. you expect all others to either approve of immigrants, or disapprove, no distinction.
For your part, you approve of all immigrants, legality issues mean nothing.
Others, recognize some immigrants have played by the rules, and others have attempted to circumvent legal paths to residency. The say they favor legal residents, but do not care for those who have disobeyed the laws. You say this is not possible. You believe they are unreasonable to recognize differences between the two groups. This is a strong indicator of cognitive difficulties.

I have a very close relative with some serious cognitive problems, and they have similar critical thinking problems. I love them dearly. The difference between them and you, is that they recognize their problems.

Rational individuals recognize differences among subgroups, and act on that. There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about dividing a group into two subgroups, one desirable, one not. You do not seem to understand that, in this instance, and others.

You steteotype, from what I see, anyone with different opinions than yourself. You decide, by an irrational process, certain unfavorable things about POTUS, then stereotype all of his supporters, thinking they must have all of these same immoral characteristics.

Trump has ex-wives that were immigrants, one that was Jewish, and other Jewish relatives, as evidence he is no Nazi. Your reply is that Hitler "may have had Jewish ancestors", and he was a good nazi. In your mind, having a Jewish wife is no more evidence someone does not hate Jews, than possibly having relatives long dead that were Jewish. That is not rational thinking.

For the sake of brevity, I have not directly addressed your other points. At your suggestion, that can change.
lol at the bolded part

.....and I don't believe I was talking about immigrants, at all, but thanks anyway
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG and 47grapes
Feb 2019
1,316
606
nunya
Here is how I see it.
Your stereotyping and labelling has caused problems with any attempts to think critically.
Immigrants are a subset of USA residents, and you recognize that, good start.
Not all immigrants have the same qualities, but you do not recognize that. You lump all immigrants together, as if they were all alike, without regard for their differences. That kind of thinking leads to bigotry.
Rational individuals know that there are many subgroups among immigrants, and one distinction is especially critical, and important.
Some immigrants acquired residency legally, others, by a different method. Those who violated the law, to become USA residents, do not, and should not, have the same recognition as those who followed the rules, and obeyed the law.
A friend mentioned that these laws that were broken were not so serious. They amounted to little more that running a stop light, and who has not done that.
I pointed out a serious difference. If someone goes through a stop light without stopping, one time - and it is done - a few seconds of their life. An illegal resident is committing an illegal act as long as they remain an illegal resident. Keeping the stop light analogy, it is as if the never stop at a stop light - they go through every single one. That would be a problem.

So you lump all immigrants together, stereotype them, but it does not end there. You expect everyone to do as you do, and label all immigrants the same. you expect all others to either approve of immigrants, or disapprove, no distinction.
For your part, you approve of all immigrants, legality issues mean nothing.
Others, recognize some immigrants have played by the rules, and others have attempted to circumvent legal paths to residency. The say they favor legal residents, but do not care for those who have disobeyed the laws. You say this is not possible. You believe they are unreasonable to recognize differences between the two groups. This is a strong indicator of cognitive difficulties.

I have a very close relative with some serious cognitive problems, and they have similar problems. I love them dearly. The difference between them and you, is that they recognize their problems.

Rational individuals recognize differences among subgroups, and act on that. There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about dividing a group into two subgroups, one desirable, one not. You do not seem to understand that, in this instance, and others.

You steteotype, from what I see, anyone with different opinions than yourself. You decide, by an irrational process, certain unfavorable things about POTUS, then stereotype all of his supporters, thinking they must have all of these same immoral characteristics.

Here is how I see it.
Your stereotyping and labelling has caused problems with any attempts to think critically.
Immigrants are a subset of USA residents, and you recognize that, good start.
Not all immigrants have the same qualities, but you do not recognize that. You lump all immigrants together, as if they were all alike, without regard for their differences. That kind of thinking leads to bigotry.
Rational individuals know that there are many subgroups among immigrants, and one distinction is especially critical, and important.
Some immigrants acquired residency legally, others, by a different method. Those who violated the law, to become USA residents, do not, and should not, have the same recognition as those who followed the rules, and obeyed the law.

A friend mentioned that these laws that were broken were not so serious. They amounted to little more that running a stop light, and who has not done that.
I pointed out a serious difference. If someone goes through a stop light without stopping, one time - and it is done - a few seconds of their life. An illegal resident is committing an illegal act as long as they remain an illegal resident. Keeping the stop light analogy, it is as if the never stop at a stop light - they go through every single one. That would be a problem.

So you lump all immigrants together, stereotype them, but it does not end there. You expect everyone to do as you do, and label all immigrants the same. you expect all others to either approve of immigrants, or disapprove, no distinction.
For your part, you approve of all immigrants, legality issues mean nothing.
Others, recognize some immigrants have played by the rules, and others have attempted to circumvent legal paths to residency. The say they favor legal residents, but do not care for those who have disobeyed the laws. You say this is not possible. You believe they are unreasonable to recognize differences between the two groups. This is a strong indicator of cognitive difficulties.

I have a very close relative with some serious cognitive problems, and they have similar critical thinking problems. I love them dearly. The difference between them and you, is that they recognize their problems.

Rational individuals recognize differences among subgroups, and act on that. There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about dividing a group into two subgroups, one desirable, one not. You do not seem to understand that, in this instance, and others.

You steteotype, from what I see, anyone with different opinions than yourself. You decide, by an irrational process, certain unfavorable things about POTUS, then stereotype all of his supporters, thinking they must have all of these same immoral characteristics.

Trump has ex-wives that were immigrants, one that was Jewish, and other Jewish relatives, as evidence he is no Nazi. Your reply is that Hitler "may have had Jewish ancestors", and he was a good nazi. In your mind, having a Jewish wife is no more evidence someone does not hate Jews, than possibly having relatives long dead that were Jewish. That is not rational thinking.

For the sake of brevity, I have not directly addressed your other points. At your suggestion, that can change.
This argument had nothing to do with immigrants. You addressed points about Trump to which I responded with facts and logic. Do you actually have a retort for my previous statement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Aug 2019
305
32
USA
This argument had nothing to do with immigrants. You addressed points about Trump to which I responded with facts and logic. Do you actually have a retort for my previous statement?
You want to to respond to this post: A Different Reality.

The people who voted for him were not republicans.
And from a previous post:
5.Basically zero democrats voted for Trump, if they did, they ignored his support from David Duke and the KKK which is what this thread is about.
Okay. Your factual contribution to the discussion. The voters who voted for Trump were not Republicans and not Democrats. I am dying to know, who got Trump elected. Please tell me.


They were changed by misinformation and Hillary's demeanor.
Who was changed? Republicans, voters who elected Trump, or space aliens. It is not clear. I did get a tin foil hat in case it was the space aliens.
And what is this "demeanor" business about? I liked the young tart Hillary, and she lost that over the years. Tart is not the right word . You know, that low key sexiness she had. Anyway, you are right, that changed after her spouse did her wrong.


You also didn't address any of my previous points.
Maybe you should have an IT guy check out your monitor.


Oh, and we CAN blame the Russians because they DID hack the election.
I read many reports that said they attempted to influence the election. If you know credible source that said they succeeded, please share.
Yeah, no one else gives a hoot about the USA election and tried to control the outcome. Well, maybe the democrats. Maybe some college kids. Oh, Canadians may have had an interest. Mexico. U K. Might have been a bunch, I suppose.
[/I]
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
1,316
606
nunya
You want to to respond to this post: A Different Reality.



I read many reports that said they attempted to influence the election. If you know credible source that said they succeeded, please share.
Yeah, no one else gives a hoot about the USA election and tried to control the outcome. Well, maybe the democrats. Maybe some college kids. Oh, Canadians may have had an interest. Mexico. U K. Might have been a bunch, I suppose.
[/I]
Got one right here mate.
 
May 2018
4,828
3,896
USA
Honestly, it could steer us onto the path headed straight off the cliff.
It reminds me of that children's story about the Emperor having no clothes. Trumpanzees are the morons admiring the Emperor's brilliant new cloak, when he's running around naked.