“Don’t be mad at me because I’ve got an international address or chose to fled Trump’s America.”
Before you move the goalposts, let’s not forget that the reason I responded to you is that you led your previous rant with two egregious factual errors. Not a good way to start a rant, especially when your intent was to prove that somebody ELSE was making a mistake based on those reasons.
Where you are and what you are is entirely your business. I’m not locked into a US address either, and have traveled to about sixty countries in the last decade. So, let’s shake hands on that one and move on.
“And LOL…Okay…you had better things to do than debunk the very clear lies these women bought into?”
Well (laughs) maybe those lies weren’t as clear as you thought they were. Maybe you didn’t think through what they were saying deeply enough. Maybe you didn’t give any thought at all to the most salient point of all, which simply put is you haven’t walked in their shoes. Some of the reasons given were subjective impressions, and it’s not enough to just say “I disagree with that reason and here’s why”; their reasoning may be perfectly sound based on their circumstances.
Put another way, they looked at two candidates, neither of which were particularly attractive, and said “OK, I’m going with this one.” And had reasons for that. If their reasons were deadheaded WRONG, you can credibly comment. But if their reasons are dependent on the aforementioned “walking in their shoes”, and you call them WRONG because you’ve not walked in them, then you’re not helpful; all you are is being a provocateur, and to nobody’s benefit.
Example? Let’s use Rebecca. When a high ranking politician doesn’t seem to be supporting the police, they scare the hell out of a lot of people who view the police as their only protectors against chaos. Has the criticism the president-elect levies against the intelligence community concern you? If it does, then you understand — it’s the same thing. So when Obama tosses out a quote like THIS:
“None of us are entirely innocent” when it comes to racial discrimination… “and this includes our police departments.”
….at the memorial service for the Dallas officers…..a lot of people said …WTF? This is a memorial for slain police officers! He’s blaming the victim?
I expect you don’t think that’s valid, I take it. To you, that’s a “clear lie”, I would assume. If so, bunk. Obama scared a lot of people with that little ditty, in particular people who are crime victims or (like Rebecca) have a spouse or close relative involved with policing. If so, then gee, just MAYBE her views on the subject are perfectly rational.
Want another? Let’s talk Pam Cornett.
Pam was incorrect to say that the economy has “totally tanked”. She, however, is NOT WRONG when she says that people do not have disposable income. That is a SALIENT POINT when considering who to vote for, and polling suggests that it is perfectly in line with the reasoning of individual Trump voters in the four flipped states who voted for Obama previously.
Amazingly, however, you blew her off as well, coming up with the following weak tea:
Now, although you are correct about the number of jobs created, and about the unemployment rate, you failed to address her issue.
Quick Quiz: If a load of jobs are created over seven years, but the average GDP growth over that same period is 2%-ish per year, what does that tell you about the QUALITY of jobs created?
Well, it tells you the jobs weren’t very productive, doesn’t it? And if they’re not very productive, they don’t pay much.
So, the DATA backs up Pam’s statement about disposable income. And that’s a salient point. She’s correct, and what you offered up in objection does not contradict her.
If you want to troll…
Not in the least. You have opinions, so do I. But when somebody leads with a blanket, and quite frankly, arrogant, statement like this:
Are 53% of White Women F*cking Idiots™*???
Well, I’ll help you out by answering the question. And the answer to your question is NO.
Hope that helps.