Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Spinner wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

They are the country. What 2016 says is that the racists and the sexists will rule, the worst ingrates will applaud them and create the fantasies needed to proclaim their moral superiority, and everyone else will let them. Either by bemoaning their piss poor choices like entitled brats, cognitive dissonance, desperation, or rose tinted glasses we've learned that when faced with a real hard choice people would rather stay home and let our worst demons rule.

The dream is a lie. There's no point pretending otherwise anymore.

That's horse****. "They" are not the country. "They" represent roughly the 49% of them that came out to vote, and voter turnout isn't exactly high.

Calling "them" racists, sexists and ingrates" is swill, plain and simple. There is a fringe (as always) that is ugly, but to label every Trump supporter as you appear to be doing is just about the most disingenuous and irresponsible thing you could do.

I don't disagree, but there's an important caveat there - the people who voted for him are at least comfortable with electing an openly bigoted, racist, sexist, sexual assaulter. That says something; whether it says it about the voters, about his opponent, or about both I'll leave up to everyone else trying to make sense of this.

I do think it's imporatn to recoginize the differnce between pro-trump and anti-hillary. The Pro-Trump voters (at least what I've experinced) have range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better. The anti-hillary crowd (a much, much bigger group) is all sorts. It still doesn't reflect great on them, but it's not "THEY ARE ALL LITERALY MEMBERS OF THE KKK AND THE AMERICAN NAZI PARTY!!one!!1!"

I'm Canadian, and there are deplorables in MAGA hats driving reeeeal slow past the local mosque, laying on their horn.

Fething people.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

The Pro-Trump voters (at least what I've experinced) have range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better.

Whoah, whoah whoah, can't you see what you're saying here? With this statement you're claiming exactly zero legitimacy for nearly half of the people who came out to vote! Are you kidding me?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you kidding me?

No. You're just a very bad reader.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you kidding me?

No. You're just a very bad reader.

Please explain

 feeder wrote:
I'm Canadian, and there are deplorables in MAGA hats driving reeeeal slow past the local mosque, laying on their horn.

Fething people.

And their ignorant offspring share in their new found bravado...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mich-students-chant-build-the-wall-in-viral-video/ar-AAk98Ev?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

The thing to fear from Trump isn't his passing of laws attacking people and their rights, we've got checks in place that will hopefully not fail us for that. It's the message sent to that grotesque fringe who feel a kindred to his racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc. ugliness and feel that with his election to the highest office in the land that they, too, have been given a mandate.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you kidding me?

No. You're just a very bad reader.

Please explain

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

Fair enough. But the implication within the statement remains that everyone who is pro Trump, is either a bigot or an idiot. "range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better".

That's not useful at all. How are you going to build any understanding with that? IMO that sort of assumption is why the polls were all so wrong, and in a large part why Hillary lost.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you kidding me?

No. You're just a very bad reader.

Please explain

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

And, unless I am completely insane, I seem to remember using the phrase "from what I've experienced". i.e. this is what I have gotten with my personal experiences with Trump voters. There's a guy in my class who fits in the "doesn't know any better" category, for example. He insists that crime is at an all time high, and more cops are being killed in the line of duty than every before, when in reality crime has been going down since the 90, and felonious police death have been going down since the 70's. It's not that he's racist, he's anything but, he just bought into the fear-mongering.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you kidding me?

No. You're just a very bad reader.

Please explain

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

And, unless I am completely insane, I seem to remember using the phrase "from what I've experienced". i.e. this is what I have gotten with my personal experiences with Trump voters. There's a guy in my class who fits in the "doesn't know any better" category, for example. He insists that crime is at an all time high, and more cops are being killed in the line of duty than every before, when in reality crime has been going down since the 90, and felonious police death have been going down since the 70's. It's not that he's racist, he's anything but, he just bought into the fear-mongering.

and ironically enough, a trump supporter killed two cops in Iowa.

Wow.

You know I went from writing a real response, to a snarky one, to a real one, back to a snarky one, then onto a blunt one about how it's not my job to explain how English works and after 15,000 (probably 2/3 of which constitute quote walls of me trying to explain what I'm saying), I just decided "feth it if I can't say anything nice don't say anything." Then I read this crap and just feth it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

Fair enough. But the implication within the statement remains that everyone who is pro Trump, is either a bigot or an idiot. "range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better".

That's not useful at all. How are you going to build any understanding with that? IMO that sort of assumption is why the polls were all so wrong, and in a large part why Hillary lost.

That isn't the implication. The implication was literally just explained to you, and you're still doing exactly what an body of posters in this thread has always done. What isn't useful is people who ignore what other people say to create their own version of what was said so they can be indignant about. You want to build an understanding? It starts by reading what people say and actually responding to it. If you don't have nothing nice to say, go ahead and say it. Can't say I care anymore. But do not walk into a discussion with no intention of actually talking to people.

Most people don't walk into a discussion to serve as little more than a dart board for you to throw jabs at.

So please. If you don't want to actually respond to what is said, please post to this brick wall;



You can pretend its responding however you'd like.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

Fair enough. But the implication within the statement remains that everyone who is pro Trump, is either a bigot or an idiot. "range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better".

That's not useful at all. How are you going to build any understanding with that? IMO that sort of assumption is why the polls were all so wrong, and in a large part why Hillary lost.

Yes, why won't those mean democrats just cave in and understand what a great guy trump is. seeing has how after 8 years 25% of republicans won't even admit Obama is the president and still think he's a muslim, there's no hurry for us to try and make amends. I'm just eagerly awaiting democrats being called obstructionists because they don't blindly go along with trumps stupidity. building understanding requires both sides, and as the GOP won, it's on them to offer the olive branch. I for one have no desire to show understanding to a communist, rapist, racketeer, and just a all around horrible human being who brings out the worst in his base. Now is the time for him to speak out and begin the healing like he claimed he could do. or as it will turn out, his first failure as president before he's even in office.

sirlynchmob wrote:


The majority has spoken, we wanted clinton, but thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college trump won. Rigged elections indeed.

The majority did not speak. 90 million voters did not vote this year.

From the Business Insider: "While results were still trickling in, and the overall turnout could end up being higher, that preliminary total suggests that only 57% of eligible voters actually voted this year."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/

Thus, the vast majority of the populace voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, neither won a majority vote. There is a winner of the majority who voted, but not a majority.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/11/10/the_math_trump_2016_would039ve_beaten_obama_2012_395463.html

Clinton took 6 million fewer votes in than Obama.

Clearly, the majority of Americans did not want her to be president, or else they would have voted for her (I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump, but I did vote).

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


The majority has spoken, we wanted clinton, but thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college trump won. Rigged elections indeed.

The majority did not speak. 90 million voters did not vote this year.

From the Business Insider: "While results were still trickling in, and the overall turnout could end up being higher, that preliminary total suggests that only 57% of eligible voters actually voted this year."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/

Thus, the vast majority of the populace voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, neither won a majority vote. There is a winner of the majority who voted, but not a majority.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/11/10/the_math_trump_2016_would039ve_beaten_obama_2012_395463.html

Clinton took 6 million fewer votes in than Obama.

Clearly, the majority of Americans did not want her to be president, or else they would have voted for her (I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump, but I did vote).

This is probably the saddest thing...our nation is so divided right now. People protesting in the streets, and beating people up for voting Trump.

Bad times...

GG

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


The majority has spoken, we wanted clinton, but thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college trump won. Rigged elections indeed.

The majority did not speak. 90 million voters did not vote this year.

From the Business Insider: "While results were still trickling in, and the overall turnout could end up being higher, that preliminary total suggests that only 57% of eligible voters actually voted this year."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/

Thus, the vast majority of the populace voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, neither won a majority vote. There is a winner of the majority who voted, but not a majority.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/11/10/the_math_trump_2016_would039ve_beaten_obama_2012_395463.html

Clinton took 6 million fewer votes in than Obama.

Clearly, the majority of Americans did not want her to be president, or else they would have voted for her (I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump, but I did vote).

We can say that of Americans who voted, the majority voted for Clinton.
We can say that at the very least given the data we have fewer people wanted a trump presidency than a Clinton presidency.

Trump's win is most certainly an artifact of the electoral system more than it is the will of people. How much more is a subjective matter.

Some Americans voiced their opinion on who should be president by voting. Some said trump. Some said Clinton. The system with went with the minority opinion on the matter.

For better or for worse, that's what it is.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

They are the country. What 2016 says is that the racists and the sexists will rule, the worst ingrates will applaud them and create the fantasies needed to proclaim their moral superiority, and everyone else will let them. Either by bemoaning their piss poor choices like entitled brats, cognitive dissonance, desperation, or rose tinted glasses we've learned that when faced with a real hard choice people would rather stay home and let our worst demons rule.

The dream is a lie. There's no point pretending otherwise anymore.

That's horse****. "They" are not the country. "They" represent roughly the 49% of them that came out to vote, and voter turnout isn't exactly high.

Calling "them" racists, sexists and ingrates" is swill, plain and simple. There is a fringe (as always) that is ugly, but to label every Trump supporter as you appear to be doing is just about the most disingenuous and irresponsible thing you could do.

This guy gets it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


b. The only way a person like Trump can win is if we give up. We must keep fighting to make this country better. To make this world better. It is our duty, as Americans, and as Humans. We must not give up. We cannot give up. That disillusionment, that lack of effort is how people like Trump wins.

Corey Booker 2020!

I think people got sick of trying to make the system work by voting for people that say they will do things but end up doing exactly nothing or otherwise cant do nothing.

seems like trump is in an actual position to actually get something done. weather he can is yet to be seen.

Looks like the Trump team is asking JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon to be SecTreasury.

An "outsider to shake up Washington" indeed. Idiots.

But Jamie Dimon is a beltway outsider, other than President Obama also considered him for Treasury Secretary, which doesn't make him a beltway insider. Unless you just mean to point out Dimon's connections to the Obama administration?

Israel Hayom, PM Netanyahu: Donald Trump is a true friend of Israel



I think we can all say it now... that is one damn classy room.

In the interest of history, Trump endorsing Netanyahu, Jan 15, 2013;

sirlynchmob wrote:


The majority has spoken, we wanted clinton, but thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college trump won. Rigged elections indeed.

I don't think you understand what majority means.

Fisrt off, only about 25% of voters voted for Clinton. Of voters who voted, only 47.7% voted for her. Neither of those equal a majority.

And the votes are not done being counted yet. Her "popular vote" lead is very slim, and some organizations are expecting her to lose that lead as well.

I do always enjoy though the teeth gnashing against the electoral college when it doesn't go your way. I'd be willing to put my next 5 pay checks on the line that had it been the other way, Trump won the popular, and not the electoral, none of you would be saying the same thing.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

Fair enough. But the implication within the statement remains that everyone who is pro Trump, is either a bigot or an idiot. "range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better".

That's not useful at all. How are you going to build any understanding with that? IMO that sort of assumption is why the polls were all so wrong, and in a large part why Hillary lost.

Certainly not. I'm sure trump voters are motivated by a range of issues. However the fact remains that trump is racist, he ran campaign openly and proudly championing racism, and his racism was a core part of his appeal to a non-trivial portion of those excited for him. Voting for trump does not make you racist, but it certainly puts you in league with racists and makes you complacent in racism. One needn't be in a KKK member to vote trump, but one is by definition their ally when they do so.

Imagine we have a voter "Bob Robertson". Bob Robertson cares about many issues but he really cares about Education, The Military and more than anything Infrastructure Development.

Imagine you had a candidate "Stan Puppyhater", with many positions. Three of which are: Higher standards for education, Infrastructure Development and Veteran's Support. Infrastructure Development featuring particularly prominently in his campaign. This speaks to bob. Bob likes stan. Stan however also has another position "Set all dogs fire". Bob doesn't have anything against dogs, maybe he rarely even thinks of them at all. Maybe he barely even notices Stan's stance on dogs.

Imagine you had another candidate "Bill Nobridge". Bill doesn't really touch on any of the issues Bob cares about, but does have a history for blocking a few infrastructure projects in the past. In addition the guy is kind of skeevy and has been around a bunch of other politicians bob hates. Bill is staunchly opposed to setting dogs on fire.

Unalarmed by, unaware of, or perhaps simply willfully ignorant of Stan's stance on dog fires he goes to the polls and casts his vote for him. Bob isn't a dog hater. However he sure is in bed with the dog haters, and he sure is contributing the to chance that some puppies get set on fire. A great many people are rightly horrified by his choice and the implications thereof.

Bob's defense of "But I'm not a dog hater", however true will ring hollow if Stan's vision comes to pass and the fires start to rage.

 Manchu wrote:
But Jamie Dimon is a beltway outsider, other than President Obama also considered him for Treasury Secretary, which doesn't make him a beltway insider. Unless you just mean to point out Dimon's connections to the Obama administration?

I conflate Wall Street and DC as a matter of course. Is there supposed to be a disconnect there?

 djones520 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


The majority has spoken, we wanted clinton, but thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college trump won. Rigged elections indeed.

I don't think you understand what majority means.

Fisrt off, only about 25% of voters voted for Clinton. Of voters who voted, only 47.7% voted for her. Neither of those equal a majority.

And the votes are not done being counted yet. Her "popular vote" lead is very slim, and some organizations are expecting her to lose that lead as well.

I do always enjoy though the teeth gnashing against the electoral college when it doesn't go your way. I'd be willing to put my next 5 pay checks on the line that had it been the other way, Trump won the popular, and not the electoral, none of you would be saying the same thing.

You lose, I've been saying we should get rid of that archaic nonsense for about a decade now. Go look up the 2012 election thread for proof, ignore the fact that I predicted trump to win, and send me the $$$$$$$

sirlynchmob wrote:

Yes, why won't those mean democrats just cave in and understand what a great guy trump is. seeing has how after 8 years 25% of republicans won't even admit Obama is the president and still think he's a muslim, there's no hurry for us to try and make amends. I'm just eagerly awaiting democrats being called obstructionists because they don't blindly go along with trumps stupidity. building understanding requires both sides, and as the GOP won, it's on them to offer the olive branch. I for one have no desire to show understanding to a communist, rapist, racketeer, and just a all around horrible human being who brings out the worst in his base. Now is the time for him to speak out and begin the healing like he claimed he could do. or as it will turn out, his first failure as president before he's even in office.

I don't think you understand my position here. I am a Democrat. I live in California, in San Francisco even, flaming gay Castro St. is a common destination for my wife and I when we go on a walk. I have "progressive" views, I am an athiest, a feminist, and have what might even be called sometimes a socialist agenda. I have no love for Trump, and certainly no love for his campaign.

But he was voted in. There are enough people that think he's the right "leader" / "solution for our times" / "whatever" that it plainly has to be understood why pro-Trump voters voted pro-Trump. And it does everybody a disservice to insinuate that there is no legitimate reason for people to want Trump. It's crazy to not try to understand it, and is, to my mind, a sort of voluntary ignorance.

And maybe most selfishly, it does the Democratic party a disservice to de-legitimize it. IMO, the Democrats lost because they (or the Clinton platform) didn't "get it".

 feeder wrote:
I conflate Wall Street and DC as a matter of course. Is there supposed to be a disconnect there?

Yes and it is a pretty tense one at that. President Obama has been very friendly with Wallstreet bankers from the start (Dimon is a good example) - but those guys are not politicians and they are nothing like politicians. I think they just look really similar to people who don't live in either world.

 Manchu wrote:
The very first thing that Trump needs to do, please sooner rather than later, is to make some kind of gesture or statement to show that he rejects these incidents of harassment folks are claiming are being perpetrated in his name.

I don't believe it is the end times for our Republic. I think that is nonsense. I understand the frustration of HRC supporters and I am sorry to see how anxious so many of them now are. Trump needs to be held accountable and to hold himself accountable for the things he's said along the way to this point and really reach out to these folks.

I completely agree with this. Soon, I hope.

 Chongara wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

Fair enough. But the implication within the statement remains that everyone who is pro Trump, is either a bigot or an idiot. "range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better".

That's not useful at all. How are you going to build any understanding with that? IMO that sort of assumption is why the polls were all so wrong, and in a large part why Hillary lost.

Certainly not. I'm sure trump voters are motivated by a range of issues. However the fact remains that trump is racist, he ran campaign openly and proudly championing racism, and his racism was a core part of his appeal to a non-trivial portion of those excited for him. Voting for trump does not make you racist, but it certainly puts you in league with racists and makes you complacent in racism. One needn't be in a KKK member to vote trump, but one is by definition their ally when you do so.

Imagine we have a voter "Bob Robertson". Bob Robertson cares about many issues but he really cares about Education, The Military and more than anything Infrastructure Development.

Imagine you had a candidate "Stan Puppyhater", with many positions. Three of which are: Higher standards for education, Infrastructure Development and Veteran's Support. Infrastructure Development featuring particularly prominently in his campaign. This speaks to bob. Bob likes stan. Stan however also has another position "Set all dogs fire". Bob doesn't have anything against dogs, maybe he rarely even thinks of them at all. Maybe he barely even notices Stan's stance on dogs.

Imagine you had another candidate "Bill Nobridge". Bill doesn't really touch on any of the issues Bob cares about, but does have a history for blocking a few infrastructure projects in the past. In addition the guy is kind of skeevy and has been around a bunch of other politicians bob hates. Bill is staunchly opposed to setting dogs on fire.

Unalarmed by, unaware of, or perhaps simply willfully ignorant of Stan's stance on dog fires he goes to the polls and casts his vote for him. Bob isn't a dog hater. However he sure is in bed with the dog haters, and he sure is contributing the to chance that some puppies get set on fire. A great many people are rightly horrified by his choice and the implications thereof.

Bob's defense of "But I'm not a dog hater", however true will ring hollow if Stan's vision comes to pass and the fires start to rage.

I hear you. I really do. But I'm betting, and in fact my hope is, that he's much less a racist than a blowhard.

I think he's old school, alpha bully egotist male who talks brash and will say anything to get what he wants. I honestly have no idea what he wants. He took a weakened republican party and butchered everyone else in the running. It is, in my opinion, nothing short of astonishing how well he did despite going against the wisdom of all his campaign managers, and spending a fraction of what Clinton did. I think he has no shame, and I think if he thinks he can get ahead by making bold claims, getting in the headlines, and bullying, then he will. I think he's a salesman, through and through.

I literally have no idea what he will actually do in office. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ignore's the whole "wall thing" and forgets about "rounding them up". I just have no clue.

 Manchu wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I conflate Wall Street and DC as a matter of course. Is there supposed to be a disconnect there?

Yes and it is a pretty tense one at that. President Obama has been very friendly with Wallstreet bankers from the start (Dimon is a good example) - but those guys are not politicians and they are nothing like politicians. I think they just look really similar to people who don't live in either world.

Is taking industry giants and putting them in charge of government shaking things up in a good way then?

 LordofHats wrote:
Wow.

You know I went from writing a real response, to a snarky one, to a real one, back to a snarky one, then onto a blunt one about how it's not my job to explain how English works and after 15,000 (probably 2/3 of which constitute quote walls of me trying to explain what I'm saying), I just decided "feth it if I can't say anything nice don't say anything." Then I read this crap and just feth it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Co'tor said that not everyone who voted for Trump is Pro-Trump, many were Anti-Hillary and then proceeded to say who they believe the spectrum of 'Pro-Trump' voters includes.

And in all honesty they don't look too far off with their belief.

Fair enough. But the implication within the statement remains that everyone who is pro Trump, is either a bigot or an idiot. "range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better".

That's not useful at all. How are you going to build any understanding with that? IMO that sort of assumption is why the polls were all so wrong, and in a large part why Hillary lost.

That isn't the implication. The implication was literally just explained to you, and you're still doing exactly what an body of posters in this thread has always done. What isn't useful is people who ignore what other people say to create their own version of what was said so they can be indignant about. You want to build an understanding? It starts by reading what people say and actually responding to it. If you don't have nothing nice to say, go ahead and say it. Can't say I care anymore. But do not walk into a discussion with no intention of actually talking to people.

Most people don't walk into a discussion to serve as little more than a dart board for you to throw jabs at.

So please. If you don't want to actually respond to what is said, please post to this brick wall;



You can pretend its responding however you'd like.

I can read things wrong, I can make poor assumptions about intentions, and I can, when impassioned, get stupid on my own account. I make mistakes, it's true. I am only human, and I am sorry.

But please try to understand where I'm coming from when I say this statement "The Pro-Trump voters (at least what I've experinced) have range from racist donkey-caves to people who just don't know any better." is . . . disappointing.