Yzermandius19

Owly assumes the American electorate agrees with owly, because Trump didn't win the popular vote and the Republicans didn't hold the House during the mid-terms, but none of those are indications that he'll lose in 2020. Bush was re-elected in 2004 despite not winning the popular vote in 2000, Obama won despite losing the House even worse than Trump during his first mid-terms. Pure Wishful Thinking. Even if Trump did lose in 2020, it wouldn't be for the reasons that Owly thinks are the reasons.

We've been over that. Obama lost his first mid-terms far worse than Trump did, and beat Romney easily. Trump losing 40 seats is not a sign that he's going to lose in 2020, anymore than Obama's results in 2010 was a sign he'd lose in 2012. Yet you continue to cling to those mid-term results as proof Trump is done, you always assume Trump is done, especially when he isn't, so clearly you are a poor predictor of Trump's chances of winning or losing.

If Trump Haters come out and the Trump Lovers stay home, yeah he's done, but that isn't going to happen, you just wish it would.

Not a relevant point. Politicians lie and embellish, why do think attacking Trump for things that all politicians do is the best anti-Trump material, and then when that doesn't work, you cry racist? Like you are a parody of a Trump Hater by a right-wing troll who is deliberately creating as dumb of a Trump Hater as possible as a strawman, to demonize anyone who doesn't like Trump in general, except you actually believe it.

And you are entitled to interpret it in a foolish way that alienates swing voters and drives them right into Trump's arms, by buying into obvious hoaxes, and being The Boy Who Cried Racist. Go ahead, you aren't pissing off Trump, you're playing right into his hands.

Trump never said that, and I never said that. The Boys Who Cry Racist said that Trump said that, big difference

Trump already backed off the closing the border thing, he did not have the reaction that you suggest. No need to wait, Trump isn't as bothered by it as you wishfully hoped.

A lot easier to recruit 19 men to do that, then it is to recruit billions to topple America. Why you think that a small fringe group views are indicative of the rest of the world, has to be wishful thinking confirmation bias, you wish more people hated America than actually do, so you go looking for any proof that someone hates America, while ignoring all the proof of people who don't, and the jumping the conclusion that everyone hates America, because you only looked at one side of the equation. The terrorists did not attack America for justifiable reasons, assuming they did is where your analysis jumps the shark, and then you project that belief on the rest of the world.

More wishful thinking. Any proof of that plan, or are you going to be ridiculous and claim that because I can't prove their isn't a secret plan, that is proof there is one?

Argument ad populum. When your fallback is a clear logical fallacy, and then you duck proving your ridiculous assertion, you know you have jack chit. Other people buying into the ridiculousness doesn't make it any less ridiculous, in fact that makes it more ridiculous.

Argument ad populum. You can say that, but you have no proof of your assertion. The media agreeing with you, and a lot of people not being aware of the hoax, is not proof you or they got it right.

He was referring to the people at the protest who were on both sides of the statue debate, no neo-nazi's were praised as good people. David Duke engaging in wishful thinking is just as silly as when you engage in it, proof of nothing. Just because some racists support Trump, doesn't mean that Trump supports racists.

They play right into Trump's hands by letting Trump troll them, and they think they are hurting him by acting outraged. With enemies like that, you don't need many friends, don't have to be Usain Bolt to outrun The Boys Who Cried Racist.

He did not say that. The people he said were good people, were people who wanted to not remove the statue, and the people who did want to remove it, those were the "both sides" to who he was referring. The neo-nazi's weren't mentioned at all, you and the media just pretend that's what he meant, to demonize him. More grasping at straws, this is in fact one of your worst attempts yet, the Charlottesville proves Trump's a racist, is one the most famous anti-Trump media hoaxes there is, if you buy that hoax, you pretty much buy into all of them, hatred of Trump completely blinds you. Whether you buy into that hoax or not, it's a great litmus test to determine just how far gone a certain Trump hater is, and you failed that test, really badly.

They were a small portion of the protesters, they were not representative of the larger group who simply didn't want the statue torn down by SJW's who hate history and want to erase important historical monuments, because racism. You fell for a media hoax, the people wearing swastikas are not the side that Trump was praising, he was praising different folks entirely, who the media tried to lump in as racists, for attending a protest that racists also attended, completely ridiculous. You just agree with the media that there are racists under every rock, so you assume any right wing person who attend that rally was a racist, just like they do, sad.

Trump never said the nazi's were good people, he said that people who wanted to preserve historical statues included some good people, which is 100% true, most people who wanted to keep the statues weren't nazi's. You fell for a media hoax, and one of the clearest anti-Trump media hoaxes there is, which does not speak well of your ability to objectively evaluate Trump's behavior. You simply buy the mainstream narrative hook, line and sinker, even when it's a super obvious hoax, that's how blinded by Trump hatred you are.

You have no tape of him endorsing racists. You have a tape of him saying there are good people on both sides of the debate, and the debate he was talking about was the statue debate. Then media tried to pretend he praised the tiki torch folks, as if they were entirely representative of one side of the debate, and you fell for it.

He was talking about people on both sides of the statue debate, the side who wanted to tear down the statue, and those who didn't want to tear it down, not the Neo-Nazi's. "Some I assume are good people", not racist, you just don't like how he phrased the message. You got nothing, you can tell nothing by the way he talks, you just like to think you can, but your mind reading skills that you fill in the blank with, pure garbage.

I agree, but your assumption about Trump's motives are lame attempts at mind reading, nothing about his actions are inherently racist, and nothing he said is inherently racist either, you are reaching. Beef with the way he's handling the border situation, perfectly legitimate, but pretending that the way he's handling the situation is racist, that's just a silly strawman.

Bullshit asylum claims are a problem, if you don't like his way of dealing with it, that's a valid criticism, racism is not a valid criticism. Stick to the good material and eschew the counter-productive "boy who cried racist" material, or keep playing right into Trump's hands. Those are your choices, choose wisely or foolishly.

He asked border guards to help slow the flow of illegal immigration, because he doesn't like illegal immigration, race is irrelevant. You want to debate his way of going about it, fine, but not racist, stop reaching. Mexico is place not a race. Can't be racist against Mexicans, anymore than you can be racist against Canadians, not a race. Just because most illegal immigrants happen to be "brown" doesn't mean the reason he's against illegal immigration is because they are mostly "brown" people. You have no proof of that, just lame mind reading based on overreactions to words, phrases and tone of voice.

He hasn't demonstrated racism, so you can stop any time now. The sooner, the better, in you case, though Trump wants you to keep going with your silly racist angle, no doubt, because that plays to his advantage. The boy who cried racist, is very easy to run against, just ask Hillary.

Being the boy who cried racist, not a good look, I'd advise you to abandon that line of attack, if you really want to hurt Trump, instead of just virtue signaling your hate for him in a counter-productive way. You can argue he's racist until you are blue in the face, it's not helping your argument, that might play with Trump Haters, but it does not play well with swing voters.

You focused on the racist part though, should have just left that out. That doesn't make your argument better, it makes it so much worse. Turning everything into "that's racist" is not helping your cause, and that is the shit that got Trump elected, and will get him re-elected.

The swing voters who are on the fence in 2020, are more likely to vote for Trump, the more his opposition grasps for straws to attack him. People like you, are going to get Trump re-elected, his core supporters are baked into the cake, but you are alienating the middle with the far-left screech fest, that's how Trump won in 2016 too, trolling his haters into counter-productive actions to alienate swing voters in key swing states.