Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump again?
Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump again?
shareSome still are. But, most have learned their lesson.
Moe, Larry and Curly could run the government better.
MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Are Americans stupid enough to vote for ...
i think the real question is... are americans smart enough to vote for trump again?
sure, if Dems have no better option
shareTrump 2020. 💋
shareSome commentators said the same thing about George W. Bush... Won easily the second time...
shareAre you stupid enough not too?
shareto*.
shareThis is a casual message board. Whether it was a double tap on my phone,an auto correct or simply a case of me using it improperly, it's somewhat irrelevant in this circumstance. I find focusing on someone's occasional misspelling or improper grammer to be the laziest and least intellectual contribution to a message board,but by all means, feel free to continue if you feel you fit in one of those categories.
shareI just find it ironic that it happened when you were calling someone stupid.
shareYou'll have to show me where I called someone stupid, because I didn't. Furthermore,if the baseline for stupidity is making a grammatical error, I'd wager anyone who's written or spoke more than a few sentences qualifies.
shareYou said anyone who didn't vote Trump was stupid.
shareFor someone who has shown such a strong interest in proper grammar,you seem to be unfamiliar with a sentence structure known as a question. I made no declaration, just an inquiry. That's what the curvy line with a dot below it means. We call it a "question mark".
shareBut it's a rhetorical question. Especially when it's a yes or no question.
shareAmerica voted for Hillary in 2016 - she won the popular vote by a landslide. It was his base +the Russians who got him the electoral votes.
SO no, Americans won't be stupid enough to vote for him ever.
"America voted for Hillary in 2016 - she won the popular vote by a landslide."
Getting the popular vote wasn't the goal. If you'd paid attention in Civics class, you'd know that, you fucking imbecile.
The Democrat Party thrives on morons like you believing their bullshit.
[deleted]
"If only she had held her nose and deigned to campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan or Ohio she might have had a chance. "
Not with interference with the Russians, who wanted T-rump to manipulate in the WH.
He said Russians! Everybody drink!
shareThe economy is booming, illegal immigration down 70%, Muslim ban in the bag, all within a single year. Tell me again why Americans wouldn't vote for him twice?
shareLOL... brainwashed much.
shareGuilty. The positive results of Trump's presidency through lowered illegal immigration, increased jobs, reduced immigration on Muslims, is all part of his plan into brainwashing Americans into supporting him. He's a genius.
shareR u kidding me? Retail stores are continually closing. What is going to happen to all of those workers. At&t just laid off a bunch of workers once they got their tax cuts and raising their rates! Carrier, that co. tramp bragged abt is steadily laying off folks! We will end up in another recession and I ain't happy abt it!! The cycle repeats.
share"LOL... brainwashed much."
This is what passes as an intelligent rebuttal to a libtard.
LOL.
share"LOL."
Cracking comeback. You showed me.
I don't understand your logic, Snags. Someone who dislikes Trump doesn't automatically make them liberal.
shareMy point stands.
That's what passes as an intelligent rebuttal to a libtard.
Calling someone a "libtard" doesn't classify as intelligent either.
shareSure it does. As long as you back it up with evidence.
Guy is on here drooling out replies, he deserves the title.
"A thousand random people who voted for Trump, in every state, were given an IQ test. Lawyers to trailer trash. As long as you voted for Trump. They all failed. Conclusion, the United Nations should bomb the US. Once all the Americans are gone, we use the land to manufacture genetically enhanced Trump hair as an alternative fuel source for space exploration. " -- GameOfSlaves
Yeah, I'm way off.
You picked the wrong libtard to defend.
Kind of ironic from someone who started an "Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump again?" thread, huh?
Not defending. Just saying that hating Trump doesn't automatically make them a liberal.
share"Not defending."
Sure you were.
"Just saying that hating Trump doesn't automatically make them a liberal."
But posting like a moron does.
No, still wasn't defending. I just dislike when people say: ""oh, you hate Trump? You think Hillary would have done better?" Why can't someone be against both, like myself. There are morons on both ends of the political spectrum.
sharePeople can claim to be anything they want online. But I've found what reveals their true sentiments, is what causes them to need to respond to a certain post because they disagree with it so much. They can't help but reply. (I include myself in that, by the way.)
So here you are, on Trump's board, only disagreeing with those who are defending him. I see no posts from you disagreeing with those defending Hillary on her board. I would think someone 'against both' would spend some time on both boards showing disagreement to both points of view.
Also, someone making a post titled "Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump again?", is CLEARLY not in the Republican 'Never Trump' crowd, because the question doesn't take into account who he was running against. A Never Trumper would ask something like "Are Republicans stupid enough to nominate Trump again?", because even most Never-Trumpers picked Trump over Hillary when it came down to it.
So yes, there are some cases when someone's anti-Trump sentiments clearly identify them as unhinged liberals. They're easy to spot.
"People can claim to be anything they want online. But I've found what reveals their true sentiments, is what causes them to need to respond to a certain post because they disagree with it so much. They can't help but reply. (I include myself in that, by the way.)"
Wow! Thank you Dr. Psychoshit for that incredible observation. Did you learn that from Sean Hannity or Steve Doocy?
"Wow! Thank you Dr. Psychoshit for that incredible observation. Did you learn that from Sean Hannity or Steve Doocy?"
I notice you haven't made an intelligent argument against it.
But you never do have an intelligent argument, so I guess that should be expected.
You receive what you put out. You never offer anything intelligent to the forum, so I respond to you the same way.
share"You never offer anything intelligent to the forum"
You're too stupid to know what is intelligent.
Don't you have a post to make about the shoes Trump is wearing? Or his hair? Or his ice cream eating habits?
Fucking retard.
Shoes: Biggest and best in the world that only a stable genius like him can wear.
Hair: It's natural blond, just like his skin is natural tangerine.
Ice Cream: According to Christie Creme ('member him?) it's two scoops of vanilla for him, and only one scoop of vanilla for the court jesters who serve him.
OK?
"OK?"
Found your sweet spot. It's best if you stay in your areas of expertise, and not embarrass yourself by wandering out of it.
Awww - I only posted the above to placate you. And it worked!
You become waaay to hostile and twisted when we talk about important news and issues surrounding T-rump, just like he himself does. Got to keep it light and fluffy with you. You can't handle much more.
"Awww - I only posted the above to placate you."
It's the usual fare you post all the time.
You have to keep it lightweight. It's the best you can do.
The Democrat Party thrives on morons like you believing their bullshit.
I don't understand your logic, Snags. Someone who dislikes Trump doesn't automatically make them liberal.
At no point in my original comment did I say I don't like Trump. I don't, but you that's another thing you assumed. Gun to my head, I would have voted for Hillary over Trump. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for Hillary from me. I'd rather criticize the worse of the two evils. I don't like Ashton Kutcher but that doesn't mean I have to go to all the other pages of actors I hate and post negative stuff, too. If the opportunity arises, sure I will. I'm more inclined to post on Trump because he is the actual President. (Not mine because I'm not American). I saw this thread, I clicked and responded. share
"At no point in my original comment did I say I don't like Trump. I don't, but you that's another thing you assumed."
I didn't assume. I deduced by your posting pattern, where you're whining about Trump supporters' posts, but don't have a similar demonstrated aversion to Hillary supporters' posts.
"Gun to my head, I would have voted for Hillary over Trump."
What a shocker.
"I'd rather criticize the worse of the two evils."
Like I said, what reveals people's true sentiments, is what causes them to need to respond to a certain post because they disagree with it so much. They can't help but reply.
Thanks for proving my point.
"If the opportunity arises, sure I will."
The Hillary page is just sitting there. The opportunity has been present this entire time. But you haven't.
Again, proving my point.
"I saw this thread, I clicked and responded."
Yes, you responded to posts because you disagreed with them so much, you couldn't help but reply.
As I pointed out.
You can lie to yourself and others, but your actions reveal your true feelings.
"The Hillary page is just sitting there. The opportunity has been present this entire time. But you haven't.
Again, proving my point."
Because I saw Trump under the "trending section". I haven't seen Hillary.
"Yes, you responded to posts because you disagreed with them so much, you couldn't help but reply.
As I pointed out."
And as I pointed out, Trump is President, not Hillary. Had Hillary been trending above and been President, I'd do the same.
"Like I said, what reveals people's true sentiments, is what causes them to need to respond to a certain post because they disagree with it so much. They can't help but reply.
Thanks for proving my point."
And yet if I had spoken highly of Trump, you wouldn't have criticized me like you're doing now. You've admitted to be a Trump fan and you are criticizing me. I said I was neutral and I criticized both and you're upset I would vote for the lesser of two evils. Which one of us is more biased here? Who is the one using "libtard"? I never once brought up Republicans. Trump is the ONLY politician I have criticized on these message boards because of how much I despise him. I've never used said anything about Pence, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan or any other Republicans.
"I didn't assume. I deduced by your posting pattern, where you're whining about Trump supporters' posts, but don't have a similar demonstrated aversion to Hillary supporters' posts. "
Not whining about Trump supports' posts, it's the way you did it. You said people were stupid if they voted otherwise. You are the one criticizing difference of opinion.
illegal immigration down 70%
Serious question: how do you know illegal immigration is down if the entire reason they're illegal, means they're off the radar? share
How do you suppose we knew we even had an illegal immigration problem in the first place if you're suggesting they were untraceable?
sharePeople got caught.
shareHow did they get caught if they were off the radar?
shareThey're off government radar, not living radar. You get caught for a crime and your name isn't listed on any citizen database upon apprehension.
shareSo then by that metric why couldn't the slowdown in criminals caught for crimes suggest that there's a slowdown in illegal immigration? You're contradicting yourself.
shareBecause there is no way to know how many illegals are coming in. Getting rid of 10,000 illegals is easy to prove, but how would you know 11,000 aren't coming back in? It's impossible to determine the numbers of illegal immigration doing up or down.
shareIf the number of illegals getting caught are reducing, why wouldn't that be a suitable measurement of the number of illegals there are? I mean you're suggesting that any formula for any statistic the FBI uses is essentially garbage because there's always going to be a loophole. You could apply that logic to any statistic.
shareNo, you could use the number for how many illegals you have deported at it would be fact. To say that illegal immigration has gone down 70% when you don't know how many illegals are coming in, is just strange. I think it would be better suited to say illegal immigration deportations is (X%) higher than (enter year here). It's like when I hear those stats, currently, there are (specific number of millions) of people secretly living with depression. If it's a secret, how do you know?
shareThe economy was doing well when Trump took office. Hardly any of his policies have even gone into effect yet.
share"Hardly any of his policies have even gone into effect yet."
Once again, we see these hypocritical claims. If it's good economic news, Trump's policies haven't gone into effect yet. If it's bad economic news, then it's all Trump's fault. I wish you people would make up your minds.
But there's no denying the Stock Market has surged since Trump got elected. It started the day after the election, and hasn't stopped since. Meanwhile, the Dow DROPPED in the year before the election, while Obama was in office. It's obvious that just having Trump leading the country instead of Obama puts more confidence in business leaders, and spurs them to invest more in their companies. And it is too early to see the total effects of Trump's policies, such as his tax bill. But I'm sure when it does spur the economy, you jabronies will come up with some reason not to give him credit for it.