I guess this is as good of an explanation as any:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b425a0bbba06
|
|
|
|
|
I guess this is as good of an explanation as any:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b425a0bbba06
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
“We found that support for*Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as “erectile dysfunction.” Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as “breast augmentation” and “menopause.””
Seriously, get with Boofy to see where he got his beloved graphic from and see if you can find the same. You are just typing that out each time and it is just boring and must get tedious for you. At least Boofy had a pretty picture to point at.
I liked Boofy better when she was slaying vampires.
That's what you got out of me saying Trump was being authoritarian (or attempting to be that way) and saying the word socialism was not applicable?
You have become as deranged as the rest of the people that define their politics by personality type instead of policy.
Politics is apparently a cult for you. Well, I hope your "saviour" gets elected next time so you can feel better.
Nope, just an attempt at being authoritarian. I disagree with his position on this. It's OK to disagree with a position.
Now, had he used taxpayer funds to "bail out" GM and allow the government to assume a high ownership percentage of the company and attempt to dictate what types of company products they should be producing...that would be Socialism AND authoritarianism. And before Champ chimes in with his simplistic "Obama did it" analysis, this was done under both Bush and Obama. I disagreed with that was well.
If my savior was ever elected to anything, it may have mayor of Nazareth.
When you apply authoritarianism to economics, you normally get socialism or communism.
That's a stretch.
When Trump attempts to take over GM and run the company, I'll be against that, too.
Well, I would say the "list" for your reasoning has exactly one item.
1. Because Trump
Why are you against something you seemed to be for in previous years?
1. Because Trump
Why do you dismiss policies that seem to be good for America and the economy?
1. Because Trump
You are putting too much emphasis on the man. This is the state of politics in America. Idiots fainting at Obama speeches and swooning at Trump rallies. A big tribal football game. If your guy isn't doing it, it's bad.
I got no problem with Trump, per se. I just dont like it when unhinged wackos are in charge of … well, anything.
you were not vocal when the wackos were Obama, Hillary, and Holder.
When you apply socialism ideals and socialist policies to economics, you eventually get communism or marxism.
Nor did I defend them. I never supported that bunch and still dont.
You fellas called them out and rightfully so. There was nothing for me to add.
But now that the wacko in chief has an R behind his name ...
Well, I will agree that we replaced one narcissist turd with another narcissist turd.
The good thing about the current narcissist turd is that he is undoing virtually everything the other narcissist turd did (which was an attempt to fashion the country in his own image). If he was a true "R", he'd be impotent, ineffective and spineless....and we'd all be pretending everything that was done was OK.
Congress needs to address the border and immigration issues. Will they? DACA should have never happened without a bill approved by Congress and a signature by the president. R's and D's are both spineless and ineffective, so you end up with authoritarian figures (yes, Obama was more authoritarian than Trump, but wore sheep's clothing).
Here is the frightening fact: Congress is as full of self-serving narcissist turds as the oval office ever was, so it's up to us to elect people that don't think they are royalty once they get to DC. With everyone's focus on the personalities of the people that occupy the highest office, I don't see that happening.
We might just be too stupid to fix what is wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
