Donald Trump
" 4 min... Russia and china soon 3 min lel Poe Pvp experience
https://youtu.be/Z6eg3aB_V1g?t=302 |
|
 |
|
|
Bad image. Two reasons.
1. Tie isn't red
Spoiler
2. Hands in pic are too big
Spoiler
cmon, conservatives, have a sense of humor
Spoiler
Milo commands it
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Oct 20, 2016, 6:27:36 PM
|
|
" As far was what direction she wants to take certain issues, and how they will be handled policy wise, Hillary certainly has a thoroughly considered plan. She has a significant team and experience dealing with the politics and personalities involved in order to make something happen. There's no question at all in my mind, that all other things being equal (supportive vs opposing congress etc) that Hillary would be far more effective in getting things done. As for knowing what she was talking about in assessing economies, foreign policy etc, Hillary does have access and more experience with better sources of information, while Trump has more limited intel and far less experience with the politics behind the official government info. The problem with both of their judgments and "knowledge" is the same as it is for outsiders looking in. We all filter things through our lenses of personal experience and ideology. This can lead to significant mistakes. Given that the ideology is sometimes what people are voting along with, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. " That history in politics isn't always a good thing. If someone in office is known as a deal maker, someone that can get opposing sides together and get some progress and compromise going, than their experience is extremely relevant. Hillary has burned too many bridges to ever get there. Up until running for office, Donald could have been a deal maker, but he burned too many bridges as well (and is still burning more). IMO, they both performed decently. Hillary was more structured and on target. Donald was more expansive and goal focused. Both approaches speak to their backgrounds, but do not reveal any underlying advantage in policy. Whether they give us the big picture, a "10 point plan" or 6 pages of details in a speech doesn't say whether or not they have a well crafted plan. It's just a matter of conveying confidence in the plan to the audience. Their "experience" looks great/terrible to the average viewer, but when it comes to making decisions as POTUS, their knowledge is more like a footnote. It serves as an understanding of the mechanisms behind events and as a guide to who they can trust and who to ignore. Almost all of the knowledge they use to make significant decisions will be filtered through several layers of people. The aides are running the House, the Senate and the White House as much as the elected officials are. Timeliness and accuracy will be critical, and those are things no one can study for. There simply isn't time to keep up with all the information coming in. Once you begin trusting other people to filter what's relevant from the noise, you become reliant on their judgement. When you are trusting people who are trusting other people six or seven layers deep, the people involved and their integrity begins to matter as much as the leader's integrity. I don't envy either of them with trying to make the right decisions should they get elected. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
|
Holy shit, Donald's speech is hilarious. It goes from funny and lighthearted to reckless truthbomb and back. Very entertaining imo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGgxr4Sxoas&feature=youtu.be&t=1h14m59s
When the red pill kicks in:  GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence. Last edited by Xavderion#3432 on Oct 20, 2016, 10:40:18 PM
|
|
"Thanks for linking that. Truly amazing to see that speech contrasted with the fat-cat audience behind him. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
Proceeds to compare himself to Jesus and turn the comedy roast into a full fledged campaign stop; gets booed, manages to leave everyone red faced offended and looking at the floor. Until he reminds them how much money they raised at least. I don't know if trump even has a conscious. His melania joke was a hit and his first pardon Hillary joke, then he just goes off the rails into trumpland.
Xav, that guy is why I got on the forums, he was almost apoplectic. Hey...is this thing on? Last edited by LostForm#2813 on Oct 21, 2016, 12:44:39 AM
|
|
|
Hey...is this thing on?
|
|
" Is that some sort of optical illusion? How is that guys forehead so huge? |
|
" He made them feel comfortable in the beginning with all the great jokes, and then started dropping red pills. He very thinly veiled his disdain for those fat elites sitting there. And with all this controversy he got the media to talk about him again. 5D chess, folks. GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
|
