Isn't a Coronavirus Stimulus check a form of Socialism?

PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,



Why should I put you on Ignore? I only do that for people who disrespect me. Hillary is not my star. I voted against DT, not for her. For most Americans it was a lessor of two evils election. Correcting falsehoods is not whining any more than it is side-taking. It is an effort in the pursuit of truth.
Click to expand...

so you didn't vote for hillary?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,
Why should I put you on Ignore? I only do that for people who disrespect me. Hillary is not my star. I voted against DT, not for her. For most Americans it was a lessor of two evils election. Correcting falsehoods is not whining any more than it is side-taking. It is an effort in the pursuit of truth.
Click to expand...
While I didn't vote for either deplorable in favor of third party (yes, I was part of the reason Hillary only got 48.2% of the vote) I'm glad Trump beat Hillary. If We, the People have ot have a crook in office, then at least have a stupid crook, a lame crook and a spineless crook. It's much safer and better for everyone that we keep the smart crooks out of DC.

What's the falsehood? It's a lie to say or imply in any way that "Hillary really won". She didn't. She lost in accordance with the Constitution because she didn't get enough votes. Those who keep screaming "3 million votes" are pushing a fantasy, a big lie to imply Trump really lost. It's just a spin on the Republican lie that Obama was in illegitimate President because of the Birther nonsense. I see people pushing both memes as inherently dishonest.

Again, if Democrats want a Democratic President, they should start running better candidates.

election-results.jpg
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
While I didn't vote for either deplorable in favor of third party (yes, I was part of the reason Hillary only got 48.2% of the vote) I'm glad Trump beat Hillary. If We, the People have ot have a crook in office, then at least have a stupid crook, a lame crook and a spineless crook. It's much safer and better for everyone that we keep the smart crooks out of DC.

What's the falsehood? It's a lie to say or imply in any way that "Hillary really won". She didn't. She lost in accordance with the Constitution because she didn't get enough votes. Those who keep screaming "3 million votes" are pushing a fantasy, a big lie to imply Trump really lost. It's just a spin on the Republican lie that Obama was in illegitimate President because of the Birther nonsense. I see people pushing both memes as inherently dishonest.

Again, if Democrats want a Democratic President, they should start running better candidates.
Click to expand...

OK, I think we actually are closer to agreement than it sounded. All that other stuff you've attached to the '3 million votes' is a pile of baggage I do not lay claim to, but I certainly agree DT won the election, not trying to say otherwise. I do wish the Dems had a better candidate than Biden, but if that's the choice I will vote blue no matter who because I am convinced DT is not worth the pain. Too much risk. And now we see how much of a leader he is not, sitting on this thing for a month to enjoy more market gains. How foolish. We needed to start mobilizing in February, not March. Somebody who took the responsibility of the office seriously would have known that. That was a big mistake and it's not going to show very well in retrospect.

I get the 'shake things up' deal, but I don't think the gain is worth the pain for that one.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,
OK, I think we actually are closer to agreement than it sounded. All that other stuff you've attached to the '3 million votes' is a pile of baggage I do not lay claim to, but I certainly agree DT won the election, not trying to say otherwise. I do wish the Dems had a better candidate than Biden, but if that's the choice I will vote blue no matter who because I am convinced DT is not worth the pain. Too much risk. And now we see how much of a leader he is not, sitting on this thing for a month to enjoy more market gains. How foolish. We needed to start mobilizing in February, not March. Somebody who took the responsibility of the office seriously would have known that. That was a big mistake and it's not going to show very well in retrospect.

I get the 'shake things up' deal, but I don't think the gain is worth the pain for that one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Just so you and I are clear; Trump isn't responsible for the market gains or losses no matter how many times he claims he was or how many denials he makes about his responsibilities for the downturn in the economy, the lack of preparation for this crisis and, most of all, his complete ineptness in handling this matter. The best thing he's done this entire year is put VP Pence in charge.

As for the election; I've given up on the major parties and will be part of those denying who ever wins 50% or greater of the popular vote.

One last thought on that note....and a gentle jab at the "Hillary's 3 million votes" crowd --
More people voted against Hillary than for her. :cool:
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Dutch Uncle said:
Just so you and I are clear; Trump isn't responsible for the market gains or losses no matter how many times he claims he was or how many denials he makes about his responsibilities for the downturn in the economy, the lack of preparation for this crisis and, most of all, his complete ineptness in handling this matter. The best thing he's done this entire year is put VP Pence in charge.

As for the election; I've given up on the major parties and will be part of those denying who ever wins 50% or greater of the popular vote.

One last thought on that note....and a gentle jab at the "Hillary's 3 million votes" crowd --
More people voted against Hillary than for her. :cool:
Click to expand...

I don't know how you figure that last one. The numbers say otherwise. If you're discounting people like me who considered their votes 'for her' to actually be 'against him,' then what's the flip side of that equation? My understanding is the majority of votes which were cast for DT were actually people who were voting against Hillary. With noses pinched. So, if your premise is valid, then in the same sense, it also applies to DT. And he owns one stain which cannot be washed away. He lost the popular election. Wanted a landslide, dreamed of it, tried to imagine it happened, fooled himself that it did, tried to float that BS out there, but the reality is all of that nonsense was a lie. He barely squeaked by, by the thinnest of margins. He successfully divided the nation, and has kept it as polarized and contentious as ever.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,



You're welcome.



I don't know how you figure that last one. The numbers say otherwise. If you're discounting people like me who considered their votes 'for her' to actually be 'against him,' then what's the flip side of that equation? My understanding is the majority of votes which were cast for DT were actually people who were voting against Hillary. With noses pinched. So, if your premise is valid, then in the same sense, it also applies to DT. And he owns one stain which cannot be washed away. He lost the popular election. Wanted a landslide, dreamed of it, tried to imagine it happened, fooled himself that it did, tried to float that BS out there, but the reality is all of that nonsense was a lie. He barely squeaked by, by the thinnest of margins. He successfully divided the nation, and has kept it as polarized and contentious as ever.
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy: Just take the total number of votes for Trump plus the total number of votes for Third Party candidates then compare to the total number of votes for Hillary. Ergo, more Americans voted against her than for her. Obviously the same applies to Trump.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
It's pretty easy: Just take the total number of votes for Trump plus the total number of votes for Third Party candidates then compare to the total number of votes for Hillary. Ergo, more Americans voted against her than for her. Obviously the same applies to Trump.
Click to expand...

Aye.

Gotcha. So when you stated a less than admirable statistic for Hillary, you knew when you stated it that it also existed just as numerically for DT.

Nice debate tactic.

I sometimes do the same thing, fully knowing it applies both ways, just to see if anybody catches it.

Actually, most of the time it goes unchallenged. So it's a fair play.

Once I had a thread going that got pretty popular. Had hundreds of posts going. I wanted to refer back to the link I had quoted from in the OP. When I clicked on it I realized I had created a dead link. And nobody noticed it. Shows how many people actually follow up on things and really do their own research...

All that discussion about an article that nobody bothered to read.

I found the site again and fixed the link. Nobody ever noticed.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,



Aye.

Gotcha. So when you stated a less than admirable statistic for Hillary, you knew when you stated it that it also existed just as numerically for DT.

Nice debate tactic.

I sometimes do the same thing, fully knowing it applies both ways, just to see if anybody catches it.

Actually, most of the time it goes unchallenged. So it's a fair play.

Once I had a thread going that got pretty popular. Had hundreds of posts going. I wanted to refer back to the link I had quoted from in the OP. When I clicked on it I realized I had created a dead link. And nobody noticed it. Shows how many people actually follow up on things and really do their own research...

All that discussion about an article that nobody bothered to read.

I found the site again and fixed the link. Nobody ever noticed.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised......
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,
Aye.

Gotcha. So when you stated a less than admirable statistic for Hillary, you knew when you stated it that it also existed just as numerically for DT.....
Click to expand...
Of course. That's just math. As anyone who cares to look can see, neither candidate received more than 50% of the vote. Even magical, wonderful Queen Hill herself only received 48.2% of the vote, a fact no Democrat or Left-Winger has ever posted that I've seen. All I've seen is the ubiquitous "3 millions votes" bullshit. Something you and I both know is both deceptive and dishonest in presentation.

It's not a "debate tactic", it's a facet. Ten people can look at a diamond from ten different sides and truthfully tell you what they see even though each view is different. What they see is determined by the facet of their viewpoint. In this case, there are multiple mental facets such as cultural differences, political bias, national bias, mental health, etc. All views can be truthfully told even if they are factually flawed. In the diamond analogy one facet's view may not reveal a fundamental flaw in the diamond even though the person honestly doesn't see it.

Continuing with this analogy, the hard part for the person with view of the flaw has a difficult time proving to a person who sees no flaw that such a flaw exists.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,
Aye.

Gotcha. So when you stated a less than admirable statistic for Hillary, you knew when you stated it that it also existed just as numerically for DT.....
Click to expand...
Of course. That's just math. As anyone who cares to look can see, neither candidate received more than 50% of the vote. Even magical, wonderful Queen Hill herself only received 48.2% of the vote, a fact no Democrat or Left-Winger has ever posted that I've seen. All I've seen is the ubiquitous "3 millions votes" bullshit. Something you and I both know is both deceptive and dishonest in presentation.

It's not a "debate tactic", it's a facet. Ten people can look at a diamond from ten different sides and truthfully tell you what they see even though each view is different. What they see is determined by the facet of their viewpoint. In this case, there are multiple mental facets such as cultural differences, political bias, national bias, mental health, etc. All views can be truthfully told even if they are factually flawed. In the diamond analogy one facet's view may not reveal a fundamental flaw in the diamond even though the person honestly doesn't see it.

Continuing with this analogy, the hard part for the person with view of the flaw has a difficult time proving to a person who sees no flaw that such a flaw exists.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Of course. That's just math. As anyone who cares to look can see, neither candidate received more than 50% of the vote. Even magical, wonderful Queen Hill herself only received 48.2% of the vote, a fact no Democrat or Left-Winger has ever posted that I've seen. All I've seen is the ubiquitous "3 millions votes" bullshit. Something you and I both know is both deceptive and dishonest in presentation.

It's not a "debate tactic", it's a facet. Ten people can look at a diamond from ten different sides and truthfully tell you what they see even though each view is different. What they see is determined by the facet of their viewpoint. In this case, there are multiple mental facets such as cultural differences, political bias, national bias, mental health, etc. All views can be truthfully told even if they are factually flawed. In the diamond analogy one facet's view may not reveal a fundamental flaw in the diamond even though the person honestly doesn't see it.

Continuing with this analogy, the hard part for the person with view of the flaw has a difficult time proving to a person who sees no flaw that such a flaw exists.
Click to expand...

Great example.. :thumbsup:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
That and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.....or, if you're smart, two coffees at Dunkin' Donuts. :)

Have you actually read the Constitution? Do you understand it? Do you understand how our nation has elected Presidents for over 200 years? Do you understand the process for amending the Constitution?
Click to expand...

we have at least a dozen lib'ruls who've been claiming Hilliary actually won the 2016 election except that the Republicans "cheated" by having the electoral college change the election.......we've been trying to explain it to them for three years........if you find that hard to believe just search the posts here for the words "won by 3 million votes"........you will get hundreds of hits.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top