Trumps Personality, a response to thing1

sear said:
I can't optimize it to your device because I have no access to it.
I tailor it to my display screen, a top of the line UHD desktop monitor.
This graphic blurs and shrinks it. The image is much clearer before the image host compression.

b4f250d4186361be90f74aaf1e38dfa37273b13.JPG


Even compressed it's plain to see the format is perfectly adequate.
If there's a problem at your end, why don't YOU fix it?
Click to expand...

Or just do what I have done in this post. :dunno:
 
T #21

I'll demonstrate my proficiency with the quote feature to allay all such concerns once and for all.
I'm quoting myself here.
Click to expand...
The reason I don't use this feature AT THIS SITE (though I continue to use it at Yuku) is explained in detail in post #15.
 
sear said:
T #21

I'll demonstrate my proficiency with the quote feature to allay all such concerns once and for all.
I'm quoting myself here.
Click to expand...
The reason I don't use this feature AT THIS SITE (though I continue to use it at Yuku) is explained in detail in post #15.
Click to expand...

its a shame you don't see how fucking easy this is.....
 
tsuke said:
the final number is 1.2 billion spent by hillary with a couple of 100k left over. The most spent by any candidate ever. Trump spent 600 million and had around 7ish million leftover. I dont see why the liberals who want money out of politics dont see this as a victory.

FYI during the campaign Trump said that he would not need 1 billion to win and was mocked for it and said that he estimated he would spent 100m of his own money. He spent 66m.

Republicans the "big business" party according to the liberals spent 633.1 m for federal office in 2016. Democrats the party of the poor spent 799.5 m for federal office in 2016.
Click to expand...

Bazinga!
 
sear said:
"Alsoplease learn to use the quote feature. Your posts are almost unbearable to read. Are you like really old or something? This isn't usenet" DT #10
Click to expand...

a) Lemme guess. Rather than a desktop computer, you're using a "mobile device"?

b) On my UHD desktop display, the format is clear:
- quotations in bold
- replies not in bold

c) You insult me by assuming that my avoiding the quote feature is out of ignorance. I may have been using it while you were still in high school. Therefore, Ockham's Razor

d) I have another reason for DELIBERATELY avoiding the quote feature.
Specifically:
In my limited experience w/ this site's software (editor), when I block-copy from a previous post to respond to it, the text inside quote-feature highlight are not transferred.
Instead, even though they were DELIBERATELY selected, they are removed without request or permission.
Click to expand...

To circumvent this defect, I use bold highlight, because block-copy / cut-&-paste text that is bold text is included.

I'd be DELIGHTED to comply with your request, if you will have our Internet host correct this substantial software defect, that is clearly ruffling so many feathers.

Do that, and the problem is solved.
Click to expand...
My thanks to you in advance for your kind cooperation in correcting this defect.

HYPOCRITES !!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...
...
...
Click to expand...
 
Some people here are confused, "winning" is not the same thing as good or correct. Often the worst base instinct ends up "winning" because they are the most ruthless. When it comes to being president that means the worst choice wins, because he was willing to compromise more moral principals than the other guy. This is not always true, but it happens all the time in all walks of life.

Additionally, I did not see the same people who love trump for being a "Winner" flock to Obama for being a "Winner".

Obama was a political newcomer, he beat HRC for the Nomination, then won the presidency and a second term. He got healthcare passed something presidents such as Nixon, Teddy Roosevelt, Clinton, FDR and others tried but failed to get accomplished. By the measure you are calling Trump a "Winner" on, Obama is certainly a "Winner". Therefore, using your measure.... Those who are smitten by Trump for being a "winner" should have been in LOVE with Obama, but they were not.
 
"you don't see" #26

To the contrary. I proved that I do in post #23. Just how severe is your comprehension limitation? I clearly do, so you perceive that I don't? Every day is "opposite day" for you?
 
"you don't see" #26

To the contrary. I proved that I do in post #23. Just how severe is your comprehension limitation? I clearly do, so you perceive that I don't? Every day is "opposite day" for you?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Sear was actually giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

As one of the 60 million Trump voters, if I had to boil it all down to one reason for voting for him, it's that I saw a potential in Trump to bring *real change* to this country when it's sorely needed. I totally admit it's a roll of the dice and have said as much more times than I can count.

The personality thing doesn't matter to me. This isn't a damned congeniality contest. We need a leader, not a preacher or a Pope.

I don't know how it's going to turn out, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
Click to expand...
Well Barry had to grow into the job, so why can't Trump. We will see, I am sure that his critics won't have to wait long.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Thing1 said:
Seriously?

After conservatives lectured us about character and family values for decades?
Click to expand...
when did you last see ethics in politcs ( not family values-that is a sociological issue)

Did you see it from the Clintons?
Did you see that promised transparency from Obama?

and then look on the Congressional/local levels -how many Congresspeople have been indicted ?

Spiro Agnew came from my county in Baltimore -that's why I went back to the 1950's.

who even TALKS about ethics in campaigns anymore?
 
a #36

The ground shifts under our feet a bit on that.

There were some things acceptable in the 1950's that aren't now, and vice versa.

It's probably an error to say U.S. government is a-ethical. I'd say it's Machiavellian.
 
sear said:
a #36

The ground shifts under our feet a bit on that.
There were some things acceptable in the 1950's that aren't now, and vice versa.
It's probably an error to say U.S. government is a-ethical. I'd say it's Machiavellian.
Click to expand...
it's a comparison to when politicians used to have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety,to now when it's "catch me if you can" politics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top