As I mentioned in my last substantive post about three pages and an ocean of spewing of sadistic, deranged, embarrassingly odd Anti-Trumpster hate-back, I knew that there would continue to be a flood of outraged, desperate defenses, sneering over-the-top accusations, hair-on-fire vituperations all designed to keep reality at bay and ameliorate the well-deserved sense of shame that the Anti-Trumpster brigade very naturally feel about throwing their voting franchise away in one huge collective vomit/defecation tantrum.
First you make the flawed assumption that those who advocate a return of the Federal Government to within the scope of its original Constitutional Duties and powers had/have any "voting franchise" with the GOP or the current POTUS candidate. To assume that a group which has been routinely ignored with the exception of entreaties for donations and empty promises in election years is in any way enfranchised is in error.
Let me put it in another way. If you want steak, continuing to go to McDonald's or Hardees isn't going to load you up with a porterhouse. Claiming that either of those concerns is operating in your best interest when what you want simply isn't on the menu is ludicrous.
You want fries wit' dat?
Here is a topically cogent reality, restated: There is no way that anyone can possibly convince me or any other normal human being that there is absolutely no decent chance that Trump will be a significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies.
Okay, there is no way anyone could convince you. I'll leave "normal" human beings out of this, partly because "normal" is a statistical phenomenon dependent on the study group, and because you are presuming to speak for that group without having the ability, I assume, to read their minds.
Now, let's review how the barking, grunting, psychotic hate-fest all began (and has gone one for what now? 200 posts!!) because I, a genuine conservative, (as I think most of you anti-Trumpsters are not) posted a humorous poem critical of the anti-Trump movement , then had the audacity to respond substantively to a few of the vituperations with emphatic refutations/explanations etc. That's all I did. That's it.
The subsequent lunacy directed at me, my character and my intentions in posting that poem has undergone a fascinating evolution. At first the accusations were merely that I was wrong, wrong-headed, of deficient character/intellect, very foolish or oblivious. Then later, when I ignored most of these odd ejaculations from the volcano of lunacy that the anti-Trumpsters put forth (because frankly they were too numerous and ever-changing to respond to item-by-item without a full-time clerical staff to assist me), the flood became gradually more odd.
Some saw it as a novelty, some as another poke in already irritated sides by a group of people who just won't quit with their long history of vituperation, despite having been civilly dealt with, who have driven people from web fora, who have physically threatened in some instances people for harboring a different political opinion. By embracing that vituperation and directing it at folks who won't vote for that guy, you place yourself in league with them and that willful association makes you as guilty as other participants in the eyes of those who have been so accosted ad infinitum this election season. If you don't want to be counted in those ranks, don't wear the uniform, but if you do, you can expect to be treated as an adversary.
Most-lately I am a "plant" from the democrats (who stridently OPPOSE Mr. Trump the last time I checked, as do all of you nice people). So again, there is a serious cognitive dissonance in this specific vituperation. Get it together folks! How on Earth is any undecided reader to be convinced that you all have your fingers firmly on the pulse of reality when you can't get your vituperations to align with a consistent, progressive trajectory?
Ah yes, many conspiracy theories abound where the actions of people don't flange up with their stated intent. If you support Trump, why the incessant attacks on those who do not? No attempt to woo, no flowers and chocolates, just a 'grab them by the netherbits' approach? One of the most consistent inconsistencies of the Trump campaign is the unending attack on those who at first expressed reservations about voting for Trump. Trump supporters did as much or more than their candidate to create the #NEVERTRUMP movement, by
alienating, berating, and threatening people they should have been trying to convince to vote for their candidate. Maybe that's a "New York Values" thingy, where you threaten those who won't come along willingly to whack them in line, but it just doesn't play with people who have a long history of not being intimidated, and that's a common characteristic in flyover country. We get our back up when someone threatens us, and insulting us is no way to gain our support, heartfelt or grudging.
And I'm STILL waiting for someone to explain how Trump can be horribly inconsistent and also horribly predictable at the same time!!! You're all not sure what he will do from moment to moment, but you know for an absolute certainty that he will be a horrible president - even as you admit that you don't have any idea what he will actually do!! As far as I have had it explained to me by those who deal in reality, one cannot be both incorrigibly, chronically, UNpredictable and also incorrigibly, chronically predictable at the same time. It must (at least in this universe) be one or the other.
Look at it as a Heisenberg coefficient. Some things are predictably unpredictable, that is they will, with a 99.99% probability remain within certain parameters, but cannot be predicted to be in a certain spot at a given time.
Trump has a much lower predictability rate, which makes him predictably UNpredictable--to a point.
If you can't wrap your head around that, well, I can't help you.
Even with things like nuclear decay, there is a set of statistical parameters which render the process predictable. In Trump's case, though instead of billions of atoms acting as a statistical group, there is one person, one person who might have at his control things like strategic forces (nuclear), naval assets, ICBMs, the foreign policy of our nation, and other critical systems at his behest, who is predictably unpredictable.
That is not a good situation, especially since some bounding parameters of that unpredictability cannot be definitively established. Not the levels of failure one would want to do rank experimentation with, not the place to experiment with parameters, and despite Constitutional constraints, an incredible amount of damage could be done before some out of spec action or statement could be backpedaled.
So, which is it !?! A substantive response from someone who manages to stop spewing mindless, ridiculous overly-angry nonsense, wipe off the froth and the slobber long enough to post a consistent, coherent sentence would be appreciated.
See the above, and don't be trapped by the bifurcated mentality of either-or assumptions. It is both, in that he is predictably unpredictable, but that aspect has the additional problem of parameters which are, in and of themselves, unpredictable. So while it is sure that his behaviour will be unpredictable, it is not predictable to what degree nor in what direction that unpredictability will manifest itself. That is unbelievably dangerous, considering the amount of power that would be at his discretion, even momentarily.
There was a woman in the jungle
And a monkey on a tree.
The Anti-Trump Brigade it was followin' me.
They can't stop what they're doing
'Cause they've caught a disease
It's called "schizoaffective rage"
'Senses 'taken their leave their leave,
Their leave, their leave, their leave...
(LFL fires off staring pistol for a third time).
I'll just say this. You request a rational response and then post your little inflammatory dirge.
Somehow, within that cognitive disconnect, I think I see the problem.
If you assume that somehow we are the ones who have the cognitive disorder, that might be self-affirming for you, but it has irretrievably biased your attempt (assuming such is in earnest) to decipher why you are having difficulty understanding why your inflammatory posts are the subject of derision.
