Simple Explanation for the Political and Press Hysteria over Trump Election Victory

[EasyAce]

It's PAST time for the political professionals to quit bitching about what the voters do,and actually give us someone worth voting for if they want our votes.

Well, since political professionals gave us Queen Athaliah and voters (actual or alleged Republicans) gave us
Caligula for last year's contest, I'm not exactly optimistic about either side. ;)

[sneakypete]

Well, since political professionals gave us Queen Athaliah and voters (actual or alleged Republicans) gave us
Caligula for last year's contest, I'm not exactly optimistic about either side. ;)

@EasyAce

I ain't going to claim I am anywhere close to being "wildly optimistic",but I do and will lay claim to being "hopeful". After all,what does it cost?  Nothing at all,is the answer.

Compare that to the yahoos who have spend 24/7 whining,wailing,and gnashing their teeth in anguish because Bubbette! or JEB didn't win,and ALL they are contributing is noise and hatred. I honestly believe the goal of many (most?) of them is to try to set the stage for a failed Trump presidency by pissing him off. What Trump represents to THEM,seems to be a outsider who has endangered the corrupt systems they love,and it has them scared to death he might do something right and make them suffer even more. Otherwise they would just STFU and wait for him to screw up before jumping down his throat.

Hell,this might even backfire on them,like the little boy crying "Wolf!". By the time Trump gets sworn in and gets  his cabinet working,people will be so tired of hearing this crap they will just ignore any real charges.
 

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

I ain't going to claim I am anywhere close to being "wildly optimistic",but I do and will lay claim to being "hopeful". After all,what does it cost?  Nothing at all,is the answer.

Nothing but---barring any Damascus moment not likely to occur in the next four years, at minimum---the further sustenance
if not metastasis of the State and the further dismissal if not dissipation of the individual.

Compare that to the yahoos who have spend 24/7 whining,wailing,and gnashing their teeth in anguish because Bubbette! or JEB didn't win,and ALL they are contributing is noise and hatred.

You seem to forget about a non-yahoo contingency who have reasons sound enough to be wary and contribute discourse. Surely
you are not succumbing to the temptation dangled by only too many to equate a reasonable critique with "hatred." It isn't, by
the way, crying "wolf" to question or demur from a particular pronouncement or proposal that smacks of un- or extra-constitutional
origin and might portend to immediate or strategic mischief. The continuing disgrace of the presidential cult to one side, there is
nothing either noisy or hate-filled, intrinsically, about holding a chief executive or elected representative's feet to the proverbial
fire.

I honestly believe the goal of many (most?) of them is to try to set the stage for a failed Trump presidency by pissing him off.

This is a man (I use the term quite loosely) who doesn't need extra stimulation to be pissed off, he accomplishes that quite
well on his own. His tendencies to leap before checking to see if there's water in the pool are about as obscure as blood in a
hockey game, sharks in the ocean, or angst in The New York Times.

What Trump represents to THEM,seems to be a outsider who has endangered the corrupt systems they love,and it has them scared to death he might do something right and make them suffer even more.

It would be refreshing if he were to do something right, bearing in mind that when we speak of the corrupt systems
"they" love, we speak of the monster at whose teat he suckled long enough. And he may yet discover how little to its taste
the monster finds attacks by someone for whom the monster provided to any degree.

[sneakypete]

Nothing but---barring any Damascus moment not likely to occur in the next four years, at minimum---the further sustenance
if not metastasis of the State and the further dismissal if not dissipation of the individual.

You seem to forget about a non-yahoo contingency who have reasons sound enough to be wary and contribute discourse. Surely
you are not succumbing to the temptation dangled by only too many to equate a reasonable critique with "hatred." It isn't, by
the way, crying "wolf" to question or demur from a particular pronouncement or proposal that smacks of un- or extra-constitutional
origin and might portend to immediate or strategic mischief. The continuing disgrace of the presidential cult to one side, there is
nothing either noisy or hate-filled, intrinsically, about holding a chief executive or elected representative's feet to the proverbial
fire.

This is a man (I use the term quite loosely) who doesn't need extra stimulation to be pissed off, he accomplishes that quite
well on his own. His tendencies to leap before checking to see if there's water in the pool are about as obscure as blood in a
hockey game, sharks in the ocean, or angst in The New York Times.

It would be refreshing if he were to do something right, bearing in mind that when we speak of the corrupt systems
"they" love, we speak of the monster at whose teat he suckled long enough. And he may yet discover how little to its taste
the monster finds attacks by someone for whom the monster provided to any degree.

@EasyAce

Ok,so you have already given up on him before he even walks into the WH. You and the others are so ready to damn him now,there is not one chance in hell he will ever do anything that pleases you,short of suicide or resigning.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

Ok,so you have already given up on him before he even walks into the WH.

Remember---I voted "None of These Candidates" in November. Meaning I didn't care for any of the presidential
candidates going in. You can't give up on someone in whom you had little to no faith in the first place. It is
he who bears the burden of proof.

You and the others are so ready to damn him now,there is not one chance in hell he will ever do anything that pleases you,short of suicide or resigning.

Now, where have I heard rhetoric like that before?

Oh, yes. I remember.

From leftists who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward His Excellency Al-Hashish
Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic
Formerly Known as the United States---before he even assumed his throne.

And, from those who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward President Lips II---
before he even assumed his throne.

If wariness toward a) the cult of the Presidency qua the cult of the Presidency; and, b) the advent of a
president who offers little to no indication that he comprehends the Constitution, can or will construe it
reasonably, and can or will behave accordingly in office, equals a predisposition toward damnation, then I'm
only too proud to wear the accusation.

For someone whom I have known a long time as a man who never shied from holding any elected official's feet
to the fire and who professed to have been wary enough of Donaldus Minimus even while pulling the lever for him,
you certainly seem determined now to see that his feet be made fireproof.

[Hondo69]

In 2008, newly minted president Barack Obama raised a lot of eyebrows before taking office.  Some of the chattering class questioned his management style since he had zero management experience.  Others questioned his world view because other than a few books he was largely an enigma.  During his time as a state representative and as a senator he was essentially a no-show.

It was like waking up in Las Vegas with one king hell of a hangover and looking at the woman lying next to you, then vaguely remembering something about a wedding last night.  Jesus, I don't even know her name.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I honestly believe the goal of many (most?) of them is to try to set the stage for a failed Trump presidency by pissing him off.

   Plenty of Presidents have come before with the criticism Trump is getting and more, why must he be such a snowflake? Is he that fragile and delicate?

[sneakypete]

Remember---I voted "None of These Candidates" in November. Meaning I didn't care for any of the presidential
candidates going in. You can't give up on someone in whom you had little to no faith in the first place. It is
he who bears the burden of proof.

@EasyAce

BullBush! YOU are the one responsible for YOUR actions,not Trump or anyone else. If you are going to damn someone,the burden of proof is on YOU to prove their guilt. This is America,no one has to prove their innocence.

And this goes double for someone who has done nothing either positive OR negative yet and is not in a position yet to do either. You are not 8 years old and wanting a new toy. You are an adult. Act like one. Once Trump is sworn in and starts taking actions/making moves,feel free to damn or praise him all you want,but neither you nor anyone else has the right to damn someone who has never held public office before and has no track record to allow you,me,or anyone else to predict what he will do once in office.

We all pretty much knew what we were getting with Boy Jorge,the Clintons,and Obomber. All any of us can do with Trump at this point is guess,and I am saying MAYBE,if people were to encourage him to do the things that need to be done by reminding him of how he will appear in the history books if he takes this seriously,he just MIGHT do the right thing from OUR POV most of the time.


"Now, where have I heard rhetoric like that before?"

I don't think you have. I think you are confused.

"Oh, yes. I remember.

From leftists who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward His Excellency Al-Hashish
Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic
Formerly Known as the United States---before he even assumed his throne."

HorseHillary! If you are calling me a leftist or any other species of group-thinker and follower,you need to sober up before posting.

As for AA Barry,there was never even the tiniest bit of doubt in anyone's mind he was an AA token hire. We ALL knew what we were getting. The left and members of his tribe were giddy as school girls at the thought of having an AA president that would sign any damn fool thing put before him. Those of us who are conservative knew we were getting Castro with a tan.

"And, from those who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward President Lips II---
before he even assumed his throne."

See the above. Unlike Bathhouse Barry,Clinton,and the Bush Crime Family, Trump has no political track record, no record of loyalty to either party,and he damn sure doesn't owe the DNC or the RNC a damn thing. What little we know of his background he has spent his life buying and selling politicians,not being bought and sold by politicians. This gives him an advantage,and I have no idea why you and others can't see that.

"If wariness toward a) the cult of the Presidency qua the cult of the Presidency; and, b) the advent of a
president who offers little to no indication that he comprehends the Constitution, can or will construe it
reasonably, and can or will behave accordingly in office, equals a predisposition toward damnation, then I'm
only too proud to wear the accusation."

Blah,blah,blah. You are sounding like the mindless party drones. You know better than that.

"For someone whom I have known a long time as a man who never shied from holding any elected official's feet
to the fire and who professed to have been wary enough of Donaldus Minimus even while pulling the lever for him,
you certainly seem determined now to see that his feet be made fireproof."

Never doubt I won't be ready to jump right down his throat the instant he starts to stray. The difference between me and the rest of you is that I am willing to wait until he actually takes office and starts to do things before I start to criticize him for actions and policy decisions  he hasn't even made yet.

[sneakypete]

   Plenty of Presidents have come before with the criticism Trump is getting and more, why must he be such a snowflake? Is he that fragile and delicate?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

WHAT part of him not having a political history of doing wrong is it that you and the others are having so much trouble understanding?

Would you have been happier with the Clintons back in the WH?

WHY are you people making up your minds BEFORE you have ANY facts to base your opinions/judgements on?

You DO understand you are going to have a minimum of 4 years to be critical of him AFTER he starts doing things,right?

[Hondo69]

My entire life politicians have labored mightily to solve the Israeli / Palestinian problem.  Every president I can remember has expended incredible resources to find a workable solution.  What they failed to understand is that a solution was never even remotely possible at the bargaining table.  ALL of Yasser Arafat's power was derived from that conflict.  Any viable solution would have stripped Arafat of ALL of his power.

As long as I can remember Jesse Jackson has been blackmailing businesses to enrich himself and his Rainbow Coalition.  ALL of his leverage and importance was derived from his ability to blackmail.  Had any realistic bargains been struck along the way in response to his "list of issues" then Jesse Jackson would have been stripped of ALL of his power.

Today we are witnessing Barack Obama do everything under the sun to poison the well for the incoming administration.  We also are witnessing Democrats promising to fight Trump at every turn.  Not because they have legitimate concerns over cabinet nominees or future legislation.  No, they make no bones about it.  They have come right out and told the entire world they are fighting Trump just to fight. Their sole intention is to make Trump's life a living hell.

ALL of the Democrat's remaining power is derived from conflict.  They have no intentions whatsoever of loosening their grip on that power.  Any attempts to negotiate, bargain, or even to stop and listen to their complaints is a fool's errand.

[XenaLee]

Our citizenry has changed as well.  What suffices today for analysis by talking heads would have been laughed out of the room a few decades ago.

I have seen with my own eyes a round table discussion on CNN an in-depth analysis of why Obama took control of GM.  To a person they went around the table, all nodding and repeating the exact same phrase, "He had to do it", "He had to do it".

That's it.  The sum total of the assembled brain trust was "He had to do it".  No details, no explanation, not even a string of lies.  Five simple words would do the trick.

A few decades ago 90% of Americans sitting at home would throw their shoes at the TV and vow to never watch CNN again for such a blatant insult to their intelligence.  Today's citizenry has changed, no explanations required.  It's beyond an outrage, it's beyond a disgrace, it is un-American.

It's not "un-American".  It's illustrative of how the radical/extremist left has (and still is) fundamentally transformed America.  It's anti-American.

[sneakypete]

My entire life politicians have labored mightily to solve the Israeli / Palestinian problem.  Every president I can remember has expended incredible resources to find a workable solution.  What they failed to understand is that a solution was never even remotely possible at the bargaining table.  ALL of Yasser Arafat's power was derived from that conflict.  Any viable solution would have stripped Arafat of ALL of his power.

As long as I can remember Jesse Jackson has been blackmailing businesses to enrich himself and his Rainbow Coalition.  ALL of his leverage and importance was derived from his ability to blackmail.  Had any realistic bargains been struck along the way in response to his "list of issues" then Jesse Jackson would have been stripped of ALL of his power.

Today we are witnessing Barack Obama do everything under the sun to poison the well for the incoming administration.  We also are witnessing Democrats promising to fight Trump at every turn.  Not because they have legitimate concerns over cabinet nominees or future legislation.  No, they make no bones about it.  They have come right out and told the entire world they are fighting Trump just to fight. Their sole intention is to make Trump's life a living hell.

ALL of the Democrat's remaining power is derived from conflict.  They have no intentions whatsoever of loosening their grip on that power.  Any attempts to negotiate, bargain, or even to stop and listen to their complaints is a fool's errand.

@Hondo69

  You sure knocked THAT one out of the park!

I can only add that ANYONE who thinks THEY can solve anyone else's problems is a fool. People have to solve their OWN problems. No one can do it for them if it is to be an actual solution instead of a temporary pause.

[LateForLunch]

@Hondo69

  You sure knocked THAT one out of the park!

I can only add that ANYONE who thinks THEY can solve anyone else's problems is a fool. People have to solve their OWN problems. No one can do it for them if it is to be an actual solution instead of a temporary pause.

And that thought has a brother (borrowed from psychology): Nobody ever helps anyone. We can only help someone else to help themselves. Until a person takes full responsibility for the success of their own life, and start believing that they themselves have more power over their own ultimate destiny than someone (anyone) else, they are incapable of succeeding in anything important in life.

That is one of the central fundamental problems with leftist Statism - instilling in people that they have less power to control their own life than someone else.

Success in life is never based on a single decision or even a few. Life is a long series of choices. Making the better choices at each turn in the road and eventually one gets to a place called Success. Make too many bad turns and one can eventually get stuck up a creek without a paddle.

[EasyAce]

Aside from the fact that, once upon a time, those who could and did buy and sell politicians at will were precisely
the kind of people we sought (the success record varies) to keep from holding public office, you ought to think
about this:

What little we know of his background . . . gives him an advantage,and I have no idea why you and others can't see that.

What "little" we know?

The man's background is well on record. So are his assorted pronouncements during the campaign and
no few of his doings since his election. He has said and is doing things we would have condemned had they been
said and done by the like of two Bushes, one Clinton, one Obama, and another Clinton had she been elected. Now
we're supposed to just wait and see whether the national china shop, about to welcome a reckless bull, will be
shattered again?

On the actual day any American citizen bears any burden of proof over any elected official, that's the day I realise
citizenship, too, is as malleable as constitutional government has been made to become. On the actual day any American
citizen loses his or her right at last to hold any elected official's feet to the fire at any time, never mind in the days
before that official assumes office, that's the day I realise citizenship really does mean nothing, and that every last
doing or undoing in our lives is a political doing or undoing---an idea the American experiment once rejected.
Those days---contrary to the wet dreams of assorted elected (or appointed) officials and their sycophancies---have
yet to be consecrated into part and parcel of the law of the land, and I for one would fight any and every bid to
make them so.

I find it sadly amusing to see people who would have condemned the idea formerly now succumbing to the cult of
the presidency they once condemned when it comes to the reckless bull welcomed into the national china shop. By
the way, I admit the phrase "the cult of the presidency" wasn't my own invention. It was the invention of the author
of this imperative book . . .



. . . and, its equally imperative followup . . .



You might care to put those two books on your reading list, even while you pray that Donaldus Minimus will not inspire
Mr. Healy to write a second followup to be called, perhaps, Behold Your God: Donald Trump and the Still Continuing
Cult of the Presidency. And remind yourself that, once upon a time, you, too, fought the good fight against the cult,
even if you might not have phrased it that way.

[sneakypete]

What "little" we know?

The man's background is well on record.

Yes,what little we actually know. He is a P.T.Barnum character come to life. What we know about him is almost all about the image he has been selling all his life to become famous so that other people want to give him their money.

Yeah,he talks a lot of crap. ALL businessmen talk a lot of crap. It's part of negotiating a deal. You throw out a proposal stating you HAVE to have the Earth,the Moon,and the Stars,and anything short of that and you will walk. Then you start to negotiate it down to the point where they are happy to give you what you actually wanted to start with.

Maybe he will be a good president,and maybe he will suck. I don't know at this point,and neither do you.

[EasyAce]

Yes,what little we actually know. He is a P.T.Barnum character come to life. What we know about him is almost all about the image he has been selling all his life to become famous so that other people want to give him their money.

That right there should be reason enough to be wary; and, to have the bastard's feet to the fire as a precautionary
measure before he assumes the crown---oops! the presidency.

Yeah,he talks a lot of crap. ALL businessmen talk a lot of crap. It's part of negotiating a deal.

Sounds a lot like politicians, no? ;)

Maybe he will be a good president,and maybe he will suck. I don't know at this point,and neither do you.

Since I don't consider a good president to be a quasi-monarch who gives no indication thus far that he sees above or beyond
the postulates that the State is alpha and omega, the individual is nothing by comparison, and the market is less, I'd say he's
0-for-1 with a swinging strikeout after one inning of play---and that's even before he assumes his crown (oops! his presidency . . .).

[sneakypete]

That right there should be reason enough to be wary; and, to have the bastard's feet to the fire as a precautionary
measure before he assumes the crown---oops! the presidency."

@EasyAce

Get off  your high horse or put a name to the political creature that was also running for President that was any better. Or even as good,given the FACT that he owes no politician or political party a damn thing because the politicians of both branches of the ruling party have made him pay cash on the barrel head for any "favors" they have done for him in the past.

"Sounds a lot like politicians, no? ;)"

That's why they call it "politics".

"Since I don't consider a good president to be a quasi-monarch who gives no indication thus far that he sees above or beyond
the postulates that the State is alpha and omega, the individual is nothing by comparison, and the market is less, I'd say he's
0-for-1 with a swinging strikeout after one inning of play---and that's even before he assumes his crown (oops! his presidency . . .)."

Well,yeah,you can say that IF you are happy about allowing your per-conceived opinions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than brain farts to rule your intellect.

OR.......,and here is a radical thought,wait until AFTER he is sworn in and actually starts doing something before screaming about how incompetent and crooked he is. Maybe even try to offer suggestions instead of accusations?

[EasyAce]

Get off  your high horse or put a name to the political creature that was also running for President that was any better.

Remember what I wrote earlier: I voted "None of These Candidates" on the ballot line for the White
House. Why would I do so unless I found none of them to be worthy of holding the office? I
said it often enough during the campaign and on Election Day. Which part of "None of These Candidates"
was that difficult for someone to comprehend?

Well,yeah,you can say that IF you are happy about allowing your per-conceived opinions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than brain farts to rule your intellect.

Spoken like someone who paid little to no attention to the man, his sayings, or his known doings prior
to running for the White House. Put to one side his character issues, focus on him as a candidate and
then a president-elect, and then ask yourself why on earth you would be anything less than wary about
a man who's given no indication that he favours arresting or turning back the metastasis of
the State (we haven't had a properly construed government in a very long time), or that he favours
a genuinely free market as opposed to a crony capitalist one, or that he believes in individual rights and
sovereignty to any degree.

Bad enough we've just survived a presidential election highlighted by some of the worst candidates for the
office of which our history has record. Worse is the suggestion that the winner is or ought to be immune
from skepticism or criticism at any point after he was elected. Especially since he hasn't exactly waited until
assuming the formal oath of office to "do things" too many of which can be called at minimum dubious. The
good news has been that some of his prospective cabinet appointments (especially those not named Jeff
Sessions) get it. The bad news is that his very disposition disinclines toward accepting counsel he simply
doesn't like.

Gary Johnson---the Libertarian Party presidential candidate who wasn't exactly that much of a libertarian
(if anything, a deeper look suggested he was closer to a vintage style Rockefeller Republican)---at least
said and seemed to mean, "I'm not running for king." Donaldus Minimus may not have phrased it
in quite such words, but his every move suggested he was indeed running for king. A man running for
king, literally or figuratively, doesn't always comprehend that not every damn last matter of life requires
a political or a governmental decision or solution. A man running for king, literally or figuratively, doesn't
get that the vast majority of such matters are decided best and left in the hands of individual citizens.

Donaldus Minimus thinks he's out to make America great again. I'd have preferred a candidate who
preferred to do whatever a president can do within reasonable constitutional means (ask yourself if
Donaldus Minimus really understands reasonable constitutional means) to make America America
again. Seeing no such candidate, really, I voted "None of These Candidates." And I'd vote that way
again right now if an election were to be held and a similar offering of candidates was presented.

[sneakypete]

Spoken like someone who paid little to no attention to the man, his sayings, or his known doings prior
to running for the White House. Put to one side his character issues, focus on him as a candidate and
then a president-elect, and then ask yourself why on earth you would be anything less than wary about
a man ...."


@EasyAce

WHOAAAAAAA,COWBOY! Where have I EVER said I wasn't wary of him? In FACT,if you will check the post that started this thread,you will see I didn't decide to vote for him until the night before the election,as well as why I finally decided to vote for him.

Anybody that ISN'T wary of anyone wanting to be president is a damn fool. The FACT that remains is he couldn't be worse than the Clintons if he tried,and it WAS going to be him or her sitting in the WH on 21 Jan 2017.

And,despite all verbal stones you threw at him as well as all the verbal stones *I* threw at him,neither one of us has any proof of how he is going to act or conduct himself as president because he has never held public office before. He will have to work hard 24/7 to be worse that the Bush Crime Family or the Clinton Crime Family,and frankly,I don't think that will happen because unlike the Clintons and the Bushes,he is driven by ego,not greed.

[EasyAce]

The FACT that remains is he couldn't be worse than the Clintons if he tried . . .

You've got to be kidding.

. . . and it WAS going to be him or her sitting in the WH on 21 Jan 2017.

Yep. A choice between Caligula and Queen Athaliah.

. . . neither one of us has any proof of how he is going to act or conduct himself as president because he has never held public office before. He will have to work hard 24/7 to be worse that the Bush Crime Family or the Clinton Crime Family,and frankly,I don't think that will happen because unlike the Clintons and the Bushes, he is driven by ego,not greed.

Never mind how much ego did play into many of the Bush and Clinton doings/undoings (more than you think), if you really think greed
isn't as much a part of Donaldus Minimus's modus operandi as ego, you weren't paying as much attention to the man
as you thought you did. Jesus Louise-us, he bragged about it at one of the presidential campaign debates. Don't get me wrong,
how much money a man or woman thinks he or she should earn or have isn't my concern, and I'm not any kind of advocate
of wealth redistribution. But don't tell me greed isn't as much part of his MO as ego because on more than one
occasion in the past couple of years he's flat out said it is and he couldn't care less who knows it. Atlantic City
is only one locale that wishes otherwise.

[sneakypete]

You've got to be kidding.
Yep. A choice between Caligula and Queen Athaliah.
Never mind how much ego did play into many of the Bush and Clinton doings/undoings (more than you think), if you really think greed
isn't as much a part of Donaldus Minimus's modus operandi as ego, you weren't paying as much attention to the man
as you thought you did. Jesus Louise-us, he bragged about it at one of the presidential campaign debates. Don't get me wrong,
how much money a man or woman thinks he or she should earn or have isn't my concern, and I'm not any kind of advocate
of wealth redistribution. But don't tell me greed isn't as much part of his MO as ego because on more than one
occasion in the past couple of years he's flat out said it is and he couldn't care less who knows it. Atlantic City
is only one locale that wishes otherwise.

@EasyAce

You are really going to be heartbroken if he turns out to be even a semi-good president. You have all this hatred and other emotions invested in him being worse than the Clinton and Bush Crime Families,which just ain't possible,and are really going to be distressed if your dreams don't come true.

[bigheadfred]

Oh, he has the potential to be worse.

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh, he has the potential to be worse.

I can't wait.  The suspense is killing me.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

You are really going to be heartbroken if he turns out to be even a semi-good president.

Heartbroken, no. Surprised, yes.

You have all this hatred and other emotions invested in him being worse than the Clinton and Bush Crime Families . . .

Yep, there it is. Anyone demurring from automatic acquiescence, no matter how reasonable their tone or words,
no matter the evidence they adduce in support, they're just a "hater" full of "hatred."

Congratulations. You've now become what you used to assail, and quite well at that, when hit with the same fraudulent
epithet by the Obama, Bush, and Clinton sycophancies.

[sneakypete]

Heartbroken, no. Surprised, yes.

Yep, there it is. Anyone demurring from automatic acquiescence, no matter how reasonable their tone or words,
no matter the evidence they adduce in support, they're just a "hater" full of "hatred."

Congratulations. You've now become what you used to assail, and quite well at that, when hit with the same fraudulent
epithet by the Obama, Bush, and Clinton sycophancies.

@EasyAce

I hope you were looking into a mirror when you thought that.