Quote:
Originally Posted by Mori****a System
So you don't dispute the facts that I presented and reverted back to the Iraqi refugee example
Reverted? The Iraqi refugee example is the only thing I have been talking about in this thread. Rather than admit your argument about Trump's vs. Obama's responsibility for the travel ban was weakened any amount by it turning out to be false, you've just doubled down on everything else and claimed it changes nothing. That's some clown ****, dude, and speaks to both your own failures in "researching" things as well as your general level of dishonesty when arguing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mori****a System
Fair enough. What makes you think you are not making the same mistakes that people who did bet on Clinton made? What sets you apart?
I don't think I'm different, but given that I didn't wager any money on the election I'm not sure what "mistakes" you're referring to. I have no vested interest in predicting election outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mori****a System
How many Trumpkins do you think actually post here or read this site, compared to people that were just riding the Trump train for betting purposes?
I think several of the regs in the Trump thread are genuine fans of Trump who are happy he was elected for reasons other than whatever bets they placed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mori****a System
Other than Breitbart, exactly what are they citing to show the circle-jerking about Trump's awesomeness? As you noted, even Fox isn't exactly too keen on Trump either. From what I can see, pretty much every news organization other than the so called news that is Breitbart is hammering Trump with negative articles. Is Trump truly that negative in your view? If so, why does he still have over 40% of the vote and is not falling to something like what George Wallace had if his platform is genuine racism and bigotry?
They cite Breitbart, Fox News (I cite them from time to time to put news in a language the Trumpkins can understand but they've hardly given up, or are even leaning negatively on him, yet), I think I've seen right-leaning outlets like the Washington Times in there too, and of course a nice assortment of wacko right-wing blogs from the people that have zero self-awareness of what they're posting.
The George Wallace comparison seems inappropriate; he won a handful of states as an independent, which is a pretty strong showing for someone running outside the two-party system. Who's to say Trump wouldn't have had a similar result if he ran as an independent, or if Wallace wouldn't have had a similar result to 2016 Trump if he had a better environment to run in as a major party candidate? You seem to be operating under the assumption that Trump can't have run a racist or bigoted campaign because 40% of America would never support such a thing, seems a little flawed.
As to the question of "is Trump that negative" - that's a fairly ambiguous question, I'm not sure what you mean.