The other day I stumbled upon Steve’s YT rant on Trump and when I agree with Steve’s views on politics issues a 100% you can be shure that the contrarian position is just untenable, in this case: to be a Trump supporter.
I am baffled that someone so shallow and patently unfit for office can come so close to holding the highest office in the US.
I fully agree with Steve’s assessment of his language learning prospects. But another aspect I think deserves more attention and that is his own use of the English language. To me how you use language is a good indicator of your intellectual prowess and thought processes. I find Trump’s command of his native language extremely weak, his language is flat and uninteresting, his vocabulary incredibly limited and his general rhethoric abilities are very weak. He does have a great voice and a strong delivery though. So hearing him give a speech is like eating dog food in a gold clad restaurant.
Good speakers and intelligent people read A LOT, so it is no surprise to me that Trump is said to read little more than the stock ticker on his TV.
Let’s hope for the best on Tuesday, but I am still in shock!
@Friedemann: “…when I agree with Steve’s views on politics issues a 100% you can be shure that the contrarian position is just untenable…”
Such modesty!
Nice to see you around Friedemann, how you doing these days?
Was Trump betrifft, kann ich dir nur zustimmen - der Mann ist ein Affe. “Grab 'em by the pussy”…also wirklich! Ein wahrer Gentleman würde so etwas nie sagen. (TUN is eine Sache, aber sagen, nein!)
Trump is much more fit for presidency than Clinton ever will be. I am baffled that anyone can seriously support a war-mongering corrupt person like Hillary Clinton.
As for his language usage, it is immensely effective. You might not like it, but its impossible not to be impressed by how well he’s done it throughout this election whether he will win or not. This is largely due to his use of the English language.
@Tarris1: “…I am baffled that anyone can seriously support a war-mongering corrupt person like Hillary Clinton…”
Moi aussi.
If the Republicans had chosen (let’s just say) Marco Rubio to run, they would have surely CRUSHED this ghastly wax-faced creature of Wall Street into powder. As it is, the whole thing is on a knife edge! It seems so unnecessary that the world might have to suffer this appalling woman in the Whitehouse for 4 years.
But then again, it might have to suffer a human gorilla in a baggy suit and vulgar red tie for 4 years…so…
One feels despair. Really it seems to me to be a grotesque failure of the US political system that it could produce two such candidates as this for its highest office…
Dude, Rubio is way worse than Clinton. The republican party is trying to Rob the American people blind. Just look at the proposals. I encourage his supporters to look at the dumpster fire of a Tax plan that Trump has put out. It’s out there go and look. It’s completely dangerous and hurtful for most americans and they bought it hook line and sinker. I have absolutely had it with these assholes who also happen to be the only political organization in the world who universally reject climate science. I hope Rubio loses his senate race and we never hear from that cretin again.
As soon as you pivot to a vague concept like “american values”, you show you cannot mathematically defend from my argument. The economy does better, the deficit is lower, and GDP is higher when we have democratic presidents. That’s a fact. Having a reasonable social safety net has nothing to do with “american values”. I want to live in a country where the masses have access to good roads, good schools, and quality healthcare. Not just for those who have the money.
Those desires have nothing to do with American values such as the bill of rights, equality for all, democracy, separation of church and state, and yes the market freedom for anyone to be successful. Donald Trump has expressed his disdain for such values, claiming the election is “rigged”, wanting to ban or sue journalists who disagree with him, and “bringing back worse than waterboarding, even if doesn’t work”.
Social security is against American values of individualism and freedom. Social security is in practice a coerced collective insurance scheme where certain people are forced to pay way more than they’ll ever cost and others are freeriding at their expense; this is unamerican.
I want to live in a society with self-responsibility and freedom from coercion by government.
Equality for all is not an american value. Equality before the law IS and unequal taxation is not equality before the law. Democracy is definitely not an american value; America was not built to be a democracy with the majority terrorizing the lives of the minority, read any book by the founders of the United States of America and you have no choice but to agree there. A rigged election is also against American values.
Trump’s economic policies will do more good to those children than another 8 years of Obama’s destruction ever will.
lol at using those silly examples to attack Trump tho, it is nothing but pathetic. And yeah, you cannot actually defend against words without substance or argument, especially mathematically.
+Tarris1 You’re seriously lecturing an American citizen on American values?
You have some nerve!
And real experts give arguments, they don’t just brag about “knowing more than you ever will”. That’s a sure mark of ignorance. They also recognize that there may be more than one possible position in many issues, especially in social sciences, such as economics
Empty bragging, impervious to facts and to any standard of rational discussion, bragging about being “so knowledgeable”, “so great” without any proof and trying to decide who is or is not American, based on your narrow views.
Well, I guess that makes it perfectly clear why you support Trump
@ftornay, when usablefiber refuses to address my arguments and retorts to empty words and nonsense, I will return with the same coin. If you actually read through what I have posted here and in the other thread you will quickly notice that I am not the one not giving arguments.
I never said he was not american. I am saying that he seems to be against the very things the american people has been for since its foundation and offered him to trade his place with mine since he is obviously trying to make America into another Scandinavia.
Next time you post, I suggest you actually try to read what I reply to before you go on my person. He told me that I didnt know what I was talking about, I basically threw back the same thoughtless ad-hominem as himself.
I’ve read all your exchange and I don’t agree with anything you say.
You were the first who suggested that he should leave the States and go to Scandinavia because he happens not to support your pet candidate in an election in which he has a right to vote, whereas you don’t. If that’s not deciding who’s American, it is at the very least, deciding who has a right to live in the country.
Your ideas about American values are your own but you don’t get to decide which are right. You wouldn’t even if you were actually American, much less without argumentation, but, as a foreigner, you have even less right. Your lecturing tone is simply offensive.
That was the first ad hominem attack and it was completely yours. Don’t pretend you’re “counter-punching” (again, a very typical “Trumpian” strategy)
If you dont agree with an argument, you respond to the argument. You do not throw ad-hominems at a person like both you and usablefiber has, several times at this point. Whether he has the right to vote or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Trump’s economic policies are sound or not. Usablefiber says himself that he desires the policies that Scandinavia currently has enacted and I suggested to him that we change places as it would be a mutually beneficial exchange; this is not an ad-hominem. It is not an argument either, but then again I was not responding a post with a single argument in it so it was two meaningless posts after eachother.
I don’t get to decide what american values are, history does. If the founding father’s values aren’t american, then I do not know what are.
In other words, respond to my arguments and not to everything else that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Your tone is the one who is offensive here; you are attacking me, you are not providing any arguments relevant to the OP and you are ignoring the fact that usablefiber has not provided a single argument. Please go elsewhere if you have nothing productive to bring.
You wrote “you hate American values” so go out of America. It is a textbook “ad hominem” uncalled-for attack.
It was your first direct message to Usablefiber in this exchange and there’s no argument discussion to be found in it.
Don’t ask for argument exchange if you’re the first to start throwing stones.
Of course, you’re just doubling down and blaming others for what you yourself do.
Mmmmm! Where else have I seen such a behavior?
I asked him a question. I did not say he hated american values, I asked him if he actually does. Why would one stay in a country if one does not like the fundamental values in the country? It seems foolish to me so why does he not consider going elsewhere? Where is the ad-hominem here? Hint: it does not exist. Taking words out of context, where have I seen that before? hmmm…
By the way, if you scroll up two posts you will see that I started this discussion, not him. He responded to a post responding to mine so by proxy he was responding to mine with zero arguments, zero information; nothing but empty claims.
Let us see what he says in his first post. “The republican party is trying to Rob the American people blind” followed by nothing explaining how the republican party is robbing anyone blind. “look at the dumpster fire of a Tax plan that Trump has put out”, “It’s completely dangerous and hurtful”, " I have absolutely had it with these assholes" (first ad-hominem in this thread). No arguments, nothing.
It’s not “ad hominem” atttack to you! So it doesn’t warrant that you attack him back
It may be construed as an attack to Trump and the Republican party, and that’s very different because
a) They’re not arguing in this forum, so an attack to him is not presented as a replacemen for argument discussion
b) It stands to reason to discuss the temperament of a candidate to a high office and the morals of practices of a major party, it’s not the same as attacking a participant in this discussion as a way to avoid argument discussion
Don’t pretend that you were just “asking politely” if UsableFiber would care to visit your pretty country.
You clearly implied that he was un-American for not agreeing with your definition of American values and you suggested he may be unwanted in his own country.
We’re learning languages here, you know innuendo and implication when we see them and, in this case, it’s not even really hidden.
