45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 10)

[Taylor James]

I've called a Trump win all along. One of the reasons can be seen in behaviour here. People are ridiculed and shamed if they say they like Trump. I wouldn't want to say it in a British University or a media organisation and I doubt the US is much different. I think the secret ballot will show that what the polls are predicting is not in line with how the people think in sufficient states to decide the result.

Another factor is that I don't believe there's any more mud to throw at Trump. If they find some he will shrug and call fake news. Biden is vulnerable in this respect. His self-positioning as an honest man of the people can only go one way.

Edited by Taylor James on Saturday 24th October 13:43

[captain_cynic]

Taylor James said:

I've called a Trump win all along. One of the reasons can be seen in behaviour here. People are ridiculed and shamed if they say they like Trump. I wouldn't want to say it in a British University or a media organisation and I doubt the US is much different. I think the secret ballot will show that what the polls are predicting is not in line with how the people think in sufficient states to decide the result.

Another factor is that I don't believe there's any more mud to throw at Trump. If they find some he will shrug and call fake news. Biden is vulnerable in this respect. His self-positioning as an honest man of the people can only go one way.

Edited by Taylor James on Saturday 24th October 13:43

This isn't why I've called a Trump loss... But it does reinforce the notion.

In order to claim that Trump is popular they need to fall back on conspiracy theories and claim victimisation whilst trying to get immunity from critisism.

Trump is going to lose because he didn't win 2016 by a large margin... Just 80,000 people who voted for him last time need to have changed their minds.

Also there is no such thing as a silent majority.

[Al Gorithum]

In 2016 I reckon there was a significant amount of people who voted for the new non-politician guy to see what happens. They know what they got now so may be unwilling to do the same again.

[andyeds1234]

Taylor James said:

One of the reasons can be seen in behaviour here. People are ridiculed and shamed if they say they like Trump.

Edited by Taylor James on Saturday 24th October 13:43

Free speech includes the right to ridicule the patently absurd.
Feel free to say you like Trump, or indeed, any divisive figure. Just don’t expect reasonable people not to a: educate you, on why you may be making an error of judgement, then b: ridicule you when you ignore any of the points made.

[The Rotrex Kid]

Al Gorithum said:

In 2016 I reckon there was a significant amount of people who voted for the new non-politician guy to see what happens. They know what they got now so may be unwilling to do the same again.

Hopefully so eh!

Its amazing me how many postal votes are being submitted. Trump is scared of the postal vote for sure.

[paulguitar]

Taylor James said:

One of the reasons can be seen in behaviour here. People are ridiculed and shamed if they say they like Trump.

There has been some respectful discussion with the very few contributors who have sincerely tried to make a case for trump. Sadly, most of them trump defenders are incapable of coming up with much other than 'he winds up lefties', etc etc, and they tend to get treated with the disdain they deserve.

[Vizsla]

Al Gorithum said:

In 2016 I reckon there was a significant amount of people who voted for the new non-politician guy to see what happens. They know what they got now so may be unwilling to do the same again.

Exactly this. After the last 4 years, how many voters will think 'actually he's as good or better than we expected', and how many will think 'oh my, he's far far worse than we expected, what were we thinking, won't get fooled again'.

[p1stonhead]

Erm, just a TAD ambitious for the next 4 years eh...

[Derek Smith]

At the risk of stating the obvious, betting odds don't reflect likelihood. They are set to get people to bet, and, most critically, to bring in money. We can't judge their accuracy until we know what the betting numbers, both individuals and amount, are.

[Taylor James]

andyeds1234 said:

Taylor James said:

One of the reasons can be seen in behaviour here. People are ridiculed and shamed if they say they like Trump.

Edited by Taylor James on Saturday 24th October 13:43

Free speech includes the right to ridicule the patently absurd.
Feel free to say you like Trump, or indeed, any divisive figure. Just don’t expect reasonable people not to a: educate you, on why you may be making an error of judgement, then b: ridicule you when you ignore any of the points made.

Who gets to decide what's patently absurd? Surely reasonable people would try and persuade you to change your mind using rational argument? What I'm talking about, which I'm sure you know, is a baying mob mentality and behaviour, vicious and uncompromising. That may just about be ok if you're debating with a Klan member (although it's unlikely to persuade) but it certainly isn't when you're talking about places of education or the workplace and you're debating with a fellow student or a colleague.

[mdavids]

Taylor James said:

Who gets to decide what's patently absurd? Surely reasonable people would try and persuade you to change your mind using rational argument? What I'm talking about, which I'm sure you know, is a baying mob mentality and behaviour, vicious and uncompromising. That may just about be ok if you're debating with a Klan member (although it's unlikely to persuade) but it certainly isn't when you're talking about places of education or the workplace and you're debating with a fellow student or a colleague.

I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the way Trump behaves and speaks and not come to the conclusion he's anything other than a narcissistic, corrupt, bullying, nasty moron. It's just not open to debate anymore, we've had 4+ years to watch him in action. I see old footage of George W, a man who was universally declared at the time to be an imbecile and Trump makes him look like a genius.
The fact that so many have decided that 'he's their guy' is a depressing and damming indictment of the human race.

[Taylor James]

mdavids said:

Taylor James said:

Who gets to decide what's patently absurd? Surely reasonable people would try and persuade you to change your mind using rational argument? What I'm talking about, which I'm sure you know, is a baying mob mentality and behaviour, vicious and uncompromising. That may just about be ok if you're debating with a Klan member (although it's unlikely to persuade) but it certainly isn't when you're talking about places of education or the workplace and you're debating with a fellow student or a colleague.

I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the way Trump behaves and speaks and not come to the conclusion he's anything other than a narcissistic, corrupt, bullying, nasty moron. It's just not open to debate anymore, we've had 4+ years to watch him in action. I see old footage of George W, a man who was universally declared at the time to be an imbecile and Trump makes him look like a genius.
The fact that so many have decided that 'he's their guy' is a depressing and damming indictment of the human race.

In your opinion, which I can listen to without feeling the need to patronise you or imply you are somehow lacking or inferior in some way for holding that view. I think what's depressing is the number of people who can't hold a civilised discussion.

[Derek Smith]

mdavids said:

I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the way Trump behaves and speaks and not come to the conclusion he's anything other than a narcissistic, corrupt, bullying, nasty moron. It's just not open to debate anymore, we've had 4+ years to watch him in action. I see old footage of George W, a man who was universally declared at the time to be an imbecile and Trump makes him look like a genius.
The fact that so many have decided that 'he's their guy' is a depressing and damming indictment of the human race.

The question is not what he is, but does he do a good job as president. Most of the greats have had character faults, although not in the concentration of Trump, but we should not expect great but only better than the other person.

Will Biden do a better job is the only question.

I have little doubt as to the answer.

After the war, the labour government sent Keynes to the USA to negotiate a gift of money as we were not so much broke as destitute. He was highly intelligent, sharp, an intellectural, honest and an all round great guy. One labour historian said that it was their biggest mistake as he had nothing in common with American senators (bit of an indictment there). 'All' we got was a loan, one that we didn't pay off until 60 years later. A gift was so obviously the right way to go that the Americans did it anyway later.

[twister]

Taylor James said:

Who gets to decide what's patently absurd? Surely reasonable people would try and persuade you to change your mind using rational argument? What I'm talking about, which I'm sure you know, is a baying mob mentality and behaviour, vicious and uncompromising. That may just about be ok if you're debating with a Klan member (although it's unlikely to persuade) but it certainly isn't when you're talking about places of education or the workplace and you're debating with a fellow student or a colleague.

Not even if the person you're debating with in those locations also happens to be a Klan member, or is happy to admjt their support for the Klan?

If someone says they support Trump, they're saying they support a known misogynist, narcissist, and liar (and those are just the first three personality traits that came to mind when thinking about the orange stgibbon). For them to say they support such a person, it says as much about *them* as an individual as it does the person they support - either they identify with those traits themselves, or they simply don't care that the person they're supporting exhibits them.

So no, it comes as no surprise to me, or any other right minded person who places a premium on people behaving in ways that reflect the sort of society we'd like to live in, a fair, equitable, safe world, that someone who supports someone diametrically opposed to all we stand for, would be subject to a hard time. There have been times in the past when I've shaken my head in disbelief that someone could admit support for other politicians or people of power, but in the main I've at least been able to understand why they did, because although the target of their support wasn't someone I could bring myself to support, I could at least accept that they did have some redeeming features.

Trump. Nope. He is without doubt a total and utter disgrace, not just to the office of Preaident, but to the far higher office of human decency, devoid of any redeeming feature that could possibly allow anyone with a shred of humanity in their body to admit even the slightest hint of appreciation for any part of him as an individual or president. The sooner he departs the White House and starts to fade into insignificance where he belongs, the better.

[mdavids]

Taylor James said:

I think what's depressing is the number of people who can't hold a civilised discussion.

That's very true. I think Trump is such a polarising figure, we've always had and always will have Left vs Right but Trump has taken things to a whole new level and I don't think its healthy for society. The two sides should balance each other out to a certain extent and act as a brake for the worst excesses of each. Things like Trump being elected (and Brexit IMO) break that balance and push too far in one direction, driving the current heated level of debate we are seeing played out across the various forms of media.

[LHRFlightman]

twister said:

Not even if the person you're debating with in those locations also happens to be a Klan member, or is happy to admjt their support for the Klan?

If someone says they support Trump, they're saying they support a known misogynist, narcissist, and liar (and those are just the first three personality traits that came to mind when thinking about the orange stgibbon). For them to say they support such a person, it says as much about *them* as an individual as it does the person they support - either they identify with those traits themselves, or they simply don't care that the person they're supporting exhibits them.

So no, it comes as no surprise to me, or any other right minded person who places a premium on people behaving in ways that reflect the sort of society we'd like to live in, a fair, equitable, safe world, that someone who supports someone diametrically opposed to all we stand for, would be subject to a hard time. There have been times in the past when I've shaken my head in disbelief that someone could admit support for other politicians or people of power, but in the main I've at least been able to understand why they did, because although the target of their support wasn't someone I could bring myself to support, I could at least accept that they did have some redeeming features.

Trump. Nope. He is without doubt a total and utter disgrace, not just to the office of Preaident, but to the far higher office of human decency, devoid of any redeeming feature that could possibly allow anyone with a shred of humanity in their body to admit even the slightest hint of appreciation for any part of him as an individual or president. The sooner he departs the White House and starts to fade into insignificance where he belongs, the better.

[paulguitar]

LHRFlightman said:

twister said:

Not even if the person you're debating with in those locations also happens to be a Klan member, or is happy to admjt their support for the Klan?

If someone says they support Trump, they're saying they support a known misogynist, narcissist, and liar (and those are just the first three personality traits that came to mind when thinking about the orange stgibbon). For them to say they support such a person, it says as much about *them* as an individual as it does the person they support - either they identify with those traits themselves, or they simply don't care that the person they're supporting exhibits them.

So no, it comes as no surprise to me, or any other right minded person who places a premium on people behaving in ways that reflect the sort of society we'd like to live in, a fair, equitable, safe world, that someone who supports someone diametrically opposed to all we stand for, would be subject to a hard time. There have been times in the past when I've shaken my head in disbelief that someone could admit support for other politicians or people of power, but in the main I've at least been able to understand why they did, because although the target of their support wasn't someone I could bring myself to support, I could at least accept that they did have some redeeming features.

Trump. Nope. He is without doubt a total and utter disgrace, not just to the office of Preaident, but to the far higher office of human decency, devoid of any redeeming feature that could possibly allow anyone with a shred of humanity in their body to admit even the slightest hint of appreciation for any part of him as an individual or president. The sooner he departs the White House and starts to fade into insignificance where he belongs, the better.

Yep.

[captain_cynic]

Taylor James said:

In your opinion, which I can listen to without feeling the need to patronise you or imply you are somehow lacking or inferior in some way for holding that view. I think what's depressing is the number of people who can't hold a civilised discussion.

This is why you're ridiculed... Nothing like that happens here... But in order to make yourself the victim you need to establish this elaborate fantasy where everyone is attacking you... When it's nothing of the sort.

You're not being attacked. You're being critisised like everyone else on this thread, including myself and Byker. The difference is that we actually listen to our critics and use it to establish stronger arguments.

The problem you have is that you can't stand up to critisism. Creating a fantasy world to avoid it is the opposite of being rational.

You're not so special that you cannot be critisised like the rest of us.

[Taylor James]

captain_cynic said:

Taylor James said:

In your opinion, which I can listen to without feeling the need to patronise you or imply you are somehow lacking or inferior in some way for holding that view. I think what's depressing is the number of people who can't hold a civilised discussion.

This is why you're ridiculed... Nothing like that happens here... But in order to make yourself the victim you need to establish this elaborate fantasy where everyone is attacking you... When it's nothing of the sort.

You're not being attacked. You're being critisised like everyone else on this thread, including myself and Byker. The difference is that we actually listen to our critics and use it to establish stronger arguments.

The problem you have is that you can't stand up to critisism. Creating a fantasy world to avoid it is the opposite of being rational.

You're not so special that you cannot be critisised like the rest of us.

I don't regard myself as being attacked and haven't said that I was. Nor have I expressed any political viewpoint in support of or against Trump. I can debate all day long with anyone but if someone wants to throw insults about then clearly I've wandered into a nursery and not a debating chamber so I won't play.

[Gameface]

Taylor James said:

I think what's depressing is the number of people who can't hold a civilised discussion.

It tends to be Trump supporters who don't like civilised discussion.