Cancel Order for New Airforce One!?

[KL-666]

I see a deeply divided country, also in this discussion, based on an artificial division. It is as if people feel an uncontrollable need to idolize their candidate, and demonize the other. On the one side people say Trump is an angel and Clinton is the devil, and on the other side people say Clinton is an angel and Trump is the devil. This is just statistically untrue. Neither is an angel, nor a devil. Maybe the one is a bit more angel and the other a bit more devil, but that is it.

In a campaign things happen. Both sides have invented news about the other. Some of it may have been done "officially", but most of it is just done by supporters thinking to do something good. So it is a bit strange to smear that behaviour all on the candidates themselves. And it is even more insane to say: No, my candidate did nothing of that all. The other did all of it.

Such campaigning should not trouble any ones vision to think that the one is all good, and the other is all bad. No, if you try to be realistic, you will find that you like some of the policies of the opponent too.

Now Trump has won, and we have to live with it. Interesting enough, he has already pulled back his crap (Dutch expression for drawing back on earlier statements) on many of his bold campaign statements. The opposition should be happy with such behaviour. It brings common ground closer. Endorse the good aspects, instead of unrealistically dismissing the complete opponent.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

In a campaign things happen. Both sides have invented news about the other. Some of it may have been done "officially", but most of it is just done by supporters thinking to do something good. So it is a bit strange to smear that behaviour all on the candidates themselves.

But there is a difference between the two however: Trump got the most electors, officially, and is now the president-elect. If the above is stuff that "happens in a campaign" then he can stop now, right? He won, so he can stop. But he didn't. That's the difference here.

Take Carrier for example: He claims that thanks to him 1,100 jobs were saved in the US. Union leader goes to meet with the company and learns that it's about 750-800 jobs that were saved. Now, it may not mean much because it's just a simple mistake or an irrelevant number, but it meant a huge deal to the workers that still may lose their jobs. When they heard "1,100" they thought they were safe. They weren't. Trump could have said "Dang, I'm sorry, I accidentally counted it incorrectly and it's indeed closer to 800 jobs", but he didn't. Instead he went on to attack the union person and the union. That's the future president of the US we're talking about.

So I think the truth is that he's narcissistic pathological liar who actually don't care one bit about the truth. If it's right, then fine, if it's wrong, then who cares. That's Trump. But Trump is also "If you mess with me I'll do what I can to punish you", which is a petty mindset of a small person.

Again, there's a difference between him and other candidates here. If all of his lies were just stuff that happens during a campaign then he'd be done by now, but apparently he isn't. And the childish Tweets continue as before. And now he's questioning the estimates on multiple intelligence agencies as well.

The issue is clearly whether or not he's suited for this job. If anything that goes against his desire is a lie or misinformation and anybody that has a differing opinion must be fought then this country is in deep shit. What happens when he receives a message he doesn't like on national security? We don't know if he's even capable of putting his ego aside to do what's right to keep America safe.

Now Trump has won, and we have to live with it.

Well, "we" don't actually. There are always options. The question is whether or not people take them. In the US, probably won't happen.

Interesting enough, he has already pulled back his crap (Dutch expression for drawing back on earlier statements) on many of his bold campaign statements. The opposition should be happy with such behaviour. It brings common ground closer. Endorse the good aspects, instead of unrealistically dismissing the complete opponent.

Kind regards, Vincent

It might be true and it might not (that he's going back on some campaign issues). We don't know how long any policy will last and what shape it will ultimately take. And that's why nobody should have voted for him. But getting lost in all the nonsensical stuff that normal people find atrocious that now he has "pulled back" is all the other stuff that people complained about that is likely to stay.

American 'working class' people had a legitimate gripe, but rather than vote for someone who truly feels for them and would do something that works for them they chose Trump. They voted for him because they think there's an elite that runs Washington for its own benefit. And who is Trump filling his cabinet with? Do you seen anyone representing the working class so far? Or is it bankers and oil men that take a seat?

Nope, it has not brought a common ground closer. And he still hasn't done what he needed to do to stifle the racist elements that think he supports them.

[KL-666]

Americans have this weird habit during campaigns of completely burning down the opponent even if they agree with some of the policies of the opponent. I am not used to that. Here opponents say: I agree with you on this, but i strongly disagree with that. It is all fine that Americans do their campaigns like this, but this can't go on for 4 years. I do not at all say that the election is over, so nothing can be done. But at a certain moment opposition has to become normal again. Normal is to attack concrete proposals. And be realistic about that. Do not attack just any policy, only because it is the opponent who proposed it. If you agree with a policy, then admit it fairly. If you disagree than argue on the proposal specifically, and do not grab back to unrelated stuff that happened earlier. A war is won by concisely winning battle by battle, and not by discussing the complete war during each battle.

Look at what has become of this discussion about AF1. Here we have a concrete "proposal". But what happened? The whole history of the parties has been discussed again, completely obscuring the proposal at hand. No one has taken victory in this AF1 battle yet, and no one seems to care. No one has won one inch in the total war by this behaviour. That's what i call wasting discussion time.

For now we are in a bit odd situation, because it is unknown what Trumps policies will be. So the opposition must wait a bit, before they can go loose on concrete proposals. We do have a hint on the macro economic policies to come. Trump grabs to Keynesian methods of big government spending on infrastructural projects. In my country Keynes is considered a "leftie", because his policies drive up the countries debt enormously. Only socialists here embrace such policies.

And we know another thing about policies that may come. Trump promised a lot of protectionism. That is what we consider "rightie" here. So as i argued earlier, no one is completely left or completely right I am not quite sure if the Trump left/right mix will work out well. As far as i remember it, Keynes specified that protectionism hampers the effect of the big government spending policy.

Btw, I do not think you can blame a candidate for having voters who vote against their own interest. We have a saying for such voters: He who does not want to listen, must suffer the consequences. They can't be saved now, after the election. They must wait till next election to repair their mistake. All they can do in the mean time is to oppose concrete policy proposals, and hope the sharp edges will be removed from them.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Normal is to attack concrete proposals. And be realistic about that. Do not attack just any policy, only because it is the opponent who proposed it. If you agree with a policy, then admit it fairly. If you disagree than argue on the proposal specifically, and do not grab back to unrelated stuff that happened earlier. A war is won by concisely winning battle by battle, and not by discussing the complete war during each battle.

Well, I probably agree to a very large extent with that, but I would add that if we're going to use the war/battle analogy then part of the problem occurs when people vote for going to war in the first place. In other words, why discuss battles if you don't want to go to war if the option still exists to avoid it? Of course this analogy breaks down a bit, but hopefully you get the point.

Look at what has become of this discussion about AF1. Here we have a concrete "proposal". But what happened? The whole history of the parties has been discussed again, completely obscuring the proposal at hand.

Yeah, I don't take responsibility for that. Sufficed to say it is a reflection of the president elect's way of communicating. A responsible president doesn't just tweet that he canceled a multi-billion dollar deal for AF1. That's just beyond irresponsible in my opinion, and completely unnecessary. I'm open to be proven wrong about this, but to me it just seems like more spontaneous decision making, something one can't do as a president of this country.

For now we are in a bit odd situation, because it is unknown what Trumps policies will be. So the opposition must wait a bit, before they can go loose on concrete proposals. We do have a hint on the macro economic policies to come. Trump grabs to Keynesian methods of big government spending on infrastructural projects. In my country Keynes is considered a "leftie", because his policies drive up the countries debt enormously. Only socialists here embrace such policies.

I think on the one hand one can foresee what is to come by judging from the appointments he's making. Same thing as with George Bush Jr.

Btw, I do not think you can blame a candidate for having voters who vote against their own interest. We have a saying for such voters: He who does not want to listen, must suffer the consequences.

Well, you can blame the candidate if he's misleading the public. He's responsible for his own words, and the public is responsible for evaluating them.

[jwocky]

You don't get it, you will never get it and your comment about English shows only your limitless arrogance. So, well, I am out here. Do your political masturbation without me.

[Lydiot]

your comment about English shows only your limitless arrogance.

Says the guy who started a thread about people who use language incorrectly, who then freaks out when shown he is wrong!

You must not have any mirrors at home.

[jwocky]

The last three times, you pulled that of, I had to send you to Myriam-Webster and prove to you you have as usual no idea what you are talking about, but currently, I lack the time to complete your education. So go home kiddo and find someone else to play.

[OPFOR77]

Sorry, I have to.

The last three times, you pulled

Comma is ungrammatical and unnecessary. It forms a parenthetical phrase which doesn't really work here.

that of

Off, not of. Also the idiom "pulling something off" is reserved for feats, challenges, or actions that are difficult. It's not really appropriate here.

Myriam-Webster

Merriam-Webster

prove to you you have as usual no

A parenthetical comma would help here a lot around "as usual". As it is, your first sentence is quite the run on sentence, and this bit can take a small amount of parsing to comprehend.

find someone else to play.

The saying is generally "somewhere", but this works I guess.

Also, note that Merriam-Webster is a dictionary, and is not a complete grammar or idiom guide. It's contents are not always applicable when criticizing someone's grammar, and vocabulary is only one facet of language.

[IAHM-COL]

:facepalm:

We slowly moving out0fbeing an International group trying our best to communicate in Englesh, to a group of language purist in defense of #only-perfect-grammar-here-please, or #go-all-the-way #Shakespearean-Style.

[OPFOR77]

lol I am a reformed grammar nazi. Language is (and should be) ephemeral.