kurtster wrote: 
Then you're right: folks will continue to point out what he's doing. If that means it's all negative, it's something to consider.

However, you've seen me post some "let's see" posts at times - specifically, that he might repeal ACA and really put something more financially viable in its place. We'll see.
He might really help mend the rift that lingers after the Cold War and we start working in partnership with Russia, getting good things done. We'll see.
There could be a renaissance of fiscal responsibility in the USA, so we're not spending beyond our means, and there are jobs rebuilding our infrastructure. We'll see.

I'm open minded. But, based on his history (see my bullet points) I don't have a reason to be complacent. And I would think you'd be nervous, as well. 

There's a great moment in the fantastic movie "Eyewitness" where the cops accuse William Hurt of killing a notorious corrupt Vietnamese businessman, saying "You served in Vietnam; I'd think you'd have a grudge against this guy a mile wide."
Hurt replies, "I'd think you would as well. It's your country, too."

Neither of us want the country to collapse, so it's right that we both, that we all, hold this guy's feet to the fire to perform. So far, he's been a disappointment.

So its like this.  I've seen this movie before.  Same circular arguments.  Same going nowhere.

I voted for the guy and I'm happy so far.  I know that is not an acceptable answer.  It never will be.  The more I try and articulate my thoughts the more it just goes back to the same place.  My thoughts are illegitimate and poorly reasoned. They will never be accepted.  I foolishly tried to play nice only to provide amusement for others who don't wish to hear what I have to offer on the matter, or prolly anyone else who might be happy with Trump so far.

So ... back to my original point.  No reason being in here.  The only acceptable reason to be in this thread is to beat up on Trump.

or back to buddy's statement that brought me back in here for the first time in weeks and who was thoroughly mocked for making it.  When you see this thread at the top of the RAFT all the time, it won't be because someone in here is supporting Trump.  It is your friends shredding him.  Curious that it doesn't make you and everyone else around here happy.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
What Steely said. You knew what he meant, and you sidestepped it.  And you should have known that I was talking about qualifications for the office that voters consider that go beyond the eligibility requirements in the Constitution. Now you are picking up this ridiculous "elitist" spin. And blaming the media. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Your answers were good, but trying to temper his failures by noting the Biden and Bill had concerns doesn't really address the magnitude and number of his negative checkboxes.

Technically, of course, he's qualified. But you sidestep the nuance of the question, since the answer seems straightforward. His learning curve is going to be the steepest of anyone in my lifetime - while our neighboring countries, both friend and foe, watch while he figures things out.

You know, Trump is the definition of Elite: born into money, avoided serving his country, documented that he acts like a vulgar boor but people tolerate it, buddies with banker barons and the worldly hoi-polloi,  and thinks he knows more than...everybody, it seems. How do folks get around thinking he's not "Elite?" I bet if you told him that he wasn't elite he'd be the first to call you names on Twitter.



 

 steeler wrote: 
It is the Elitists who add on extra qualifications.

The Constitution leaves the rest is up to the voters.  They decide who is or isn't qualified enough to do the job.  

There are many who still don't need a weatherman to tell them which way the wind is blowing.  Or that its not raining, they're being pissed on by the Elitists and the Media.
C'ya ... 

 kurtster wrote:

 
My, god, I am qualified to be President! 

Who knew?  I sure as hell did not, but now that I know there are no other qualifications necessary . . . .

 Steely_D wrote:  

• has never held a single public office, T
• has a history of multiple bankruptcies, F corporate bankruptcies are different from personal bankruptcies.
• cheated on his wives, T  and what of Bill ?
• doesn't have the support of the majority of the nation's voters, F unknown.  The voting turnout and popular vote results could be completely different in a campaign operated without the Electoral College in place.
• publicly questions the quality of our nation's intelligence community, T and I approve.  Trust but verify.  We never found any WMD's in Iraq, right ?
• promotes Putin as a great leader in lieu of our President, F depends on how you spin things.
• has many recorded instances of unquestionably vulgar and misogynistic language, and T  then there is Biden...
• communicates with the nation not by news conferences where his contentions can be discussed, but via Twitter monologues. F he was the most open and accessible candidate we have seen in decades.  Then what about Hillary ?  Where the hell was she the whole campaign ?  

To the bolded ...   these are the only qualifications that I am aware of ...

Article II

Section 1.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How is Mr Trump unqualified ?  Is there a higher authority than the Constitution ?  In your world maybe, not mine.

There, have I answered all your questions, straightforwardly ?

 kurtster wrote: 
Consensus

edit - you ignored the bullet points. Do you think they're not true?
And if you think they're true, how do you get past that to think he's qualified?

 aflanigan wrote: 
you left that out.

later. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
Wow, you're fast.  I was going to comment on your assertion that I was deriding people for not jumping.  I was deriding people for not leaving. But I guess you did figure that out.

Calling someone a poseur is far less insulting than calling someone racist and bigoted, at least in my world.  

If not an echo chamber, then what ?  What do you call something where only one point of view is expressed or tolerated ? 

 kurtster wrote: 
Promises, promises. 

We've seen this movie before.

 kurtster wrote: 
Rational thought - rational - would recognize that Trump:

• has never held a single public office, 
• has a history of multiple bankruptcies, 
• cheated on his wives, 
• doesn't have the support of the majority of the nation's voters, 
• publicly questions the quality of our nation's intelligence community, 
• promotes Putin as a great leader in lieu of our President, 
• has many recorded instances of unquestionably vulgar and misogynistic language, and 
• communicates with the nation not by news conferences where his contentions can be discussed, but via Twitter monologues.

Those aren't opinions.  Those are the cards that have been dealt to rational thought.
There isn't a reasonable conclusion that Trump is a good choice for the Nation's President. (oh, he's not Hillary. Yawn.)
That means that talking about Trump isn't going to be some 50/50 pro/con thing, so you can complain about that, but it's an unrealistic expectation. There's no "echo chamber" if people simply agree based on the information in front of them. It's called consensus.

People jumping from a bridge? Don't be disappointed, but it's unlikely to happen.
Instead, I think you'll see talking, dissension, marching. Folks recognize that the Cheeto-in-Chief (remember how folks called the current President Obummer? Turnabout is fair play.) has to be under constant scrutiny, lest we lose the economic and social progress that folks fought for.

And, "Poseurs" is just another insulting, bullying term designed to stifle conversation. This is consistent with the new administration.

 kurtster wrote: 
I'm already tired of Trump. From my point of view he's a con man and a grifter, and some things even worse that came out on the campaign trail. I'm sick of his bullying and lying shit and he isn't even in the White House yet. And he is president because of some email garbage? 

But I'm not going to stop and let that bother me. I am going to ignore him as much as possible the next four years. He can be successful or he can be impeached, I don't give a rat's ass. I am going to focus on more important, constructive things that have importance to me, my family, and community. 

Any thoughts spent on President Pervert are a waste of time. 
 

 someone in another forum wrote: 

Check!

 ScottN wrote: 
Dubya-vu?

 R_P wrote: 
I predict wtf? moments on a very frequent basis during Trump's term.

Cons of a feather fleece the flock together...

 islander wrote: 
 
 

Steely_D wrote: 
The counting with pictures thing has gotten out of hand too. I thought it would run its course, but it's like there is no end to it. At least that one is balanced - half even, half odd, but the primes are severely underrepresented. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
Not really.  My last post in here was nearly two weeks ago.  You could click on that or scroll back to it.  And until buddy's thought was raised, tell me how many pro Trump posts or posters you see in here since my last post.  I din't see a one.

I have given up all hope of any rational thought or discussion on him at any level here at RP.   Tis why I quit posting in here and mostly anything political here.  Why voluntarily get tarred and feathered ?  I call out those who can't handle Trump's election and refuse to see it as legal as crybabies and get tagged for name calling.  Calling those who call me a nazi, racist and worse, crybabies and getting called out for that ?  I don't see anyone calling them out out for anything.

But I don't give a rat's ass anymore.  
 
This is nothing but an anti Trump echo chamber in here and it has bothered someone enough who is anti Trump themselves to complain about it at some level. 

That's how I see it.  Its going to be a long 4 to 8 years and I expect long lines of jumpers forming at the Golden Gate.  All the promises to leave the country by Trump haters is nothing but empty bullshit as usual.  Poseurs.  

 kurtster wrote: 
Since you and a few others post Trump supportive posts here, it's not "only" peeps who hate Trump. There's both sides. It's just that, like our nation, more people didn't want him than did. 
And that's OK. It's not true that it has to be 50/50 pro/against.

The honest truth, without political spin, is that more people voted against Trump than for him.

How they get out of bed? The other option is to acquiesce, which is what Trump folks keep suggesting. "Shh, now. Nothing but dreams."
Instead, we're likely to see folks rise up to prevent the loss of their rights. Electing Trump will galvanize a dormant society into speaking out. You're going to hear a LOT more posts by people who refuse to be "devastated."