4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) Anyone who comments on another country's politics when they have no background in politics is a loser. He is also a commie......therefore, loser. There really needn't be anything beyond that needed, but I'm sure it will be unsatisfactory to some. Inability to understand sitcom math is one....but I'm he he understands it. It's just that explaining it would shut down his money grab. Edited June 1, 2016 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Anyone who comments on another country's politics when they have no background in politics is a loser. He is also a commie......therefore, loser. There really needn't be anything beyond that needed, but I'm sure it will be unsatisfactory to some. Inability to understand sitcom math is one....but I'm she he understands it. It's just that explaining it would shut down his money grab. Interesting answers, I disagree with them, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Interesting answers, I disagree with them, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing. History and human nature disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I just don't consider politics when I think of someone as a 'loser' or not. For example, I disagree with Trump's politics, but he's had quite a bit of success in life overall, so I don't see him as a loser. But it appears as if I've been using the word incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Anyone who disagrees with Trump is a loser. Come on Dorkington try to keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this election, and we still have 5 months to go. Nothing at all makes sense anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I just don't consider politics when I think of someone as a 'loser' or not. For example, I disagree with Trump's politics, but he's had quite a bit of success in life overall, so I don't see him as a loser. But it appears as if I've been using the word incorrectly. I consider someone using their fame to comment on politics to be a loser move. Lame, for lack of a better word. Hawkins isn't famous because he's an American politics expert. Him using that fame to get across a message that he's no more qualified to give than me is lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I consider someone using their fame to comment on politics to be a loser move. Lame, for lack of a better word. Hawkins isn't famous because he's an American politics expert. Him using that fame to get across a message that he's no more qualified to give than me is lame. I consider him far less a loser for it than I do the people who think they have to solicit his opinion on it. Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this election, and we still have 5 months to go. Nothing at all makes sense anymore Two of the biggest grifters on the planet are running for president, and the electorate is being forced to vote for the lesser of two schmucks while attempting to justify it as "support" for a candidate. Pretty much explains everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Anyone who disagrees with Trump is a loser. Come on Dorkington try to keep up No this nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with Hawking's opinion on American politics. Did they ask his opinion on the NBA finals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Two of the biggest grifters on the planet are running for president, and the electorate is being forced to vote for the lesser of two schmucks while attempting to justify it as "support" for a candidate. Pretty much explains everything. I'd quibble a bit. The people who are forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils are the 60% who despise both. To me the inexplicable part are the 40% supporters of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I consider him far less a loser for it than I do the people who think they have to solicit his opinion on it. Two of the biggest grifters on the planet are running for president, and the electorate is being forced to vote for the lesser of two schmucks while attempting to justify it as "support" for a candidate. Pretty much explains everything. The electorate voted for the opportunity to vote for either of these 2. That's a sad commentary on "us". We deserve the government we elect unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I consider him far less a loser for it than I do the people who think they have to solicit his opinion on it. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Anyone who comments on another country's politics when they have no background in politics is a loser. Anyone who tries to negatively define one candidate without making the obvious point that what he is saying defines all candidates, is a loser. You would think a 'genius' would have said "I think Trump is a demagogue, but the same can be said about Hillary and Bernie." But no. Because even a genius has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 But no. Because even a genius has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Reminds me of those tax filing commercials where they solicit geniuses to push a button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Anyone who disagrees with Trump is a loser. Come on Dorkington try to keep up Not at all. Let's be clear. I don't like Trump. Stephen Hawking is a loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 The electorate voted for the opportunity to vote for either of these 2. That's a sad commentary on "us". We deserve the government we elect unfortunately. Sure, if the elections are actual reflections of the peoples' choice. But they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this election, and we still have 5 months to go. Nothing at all makes sense anymore Where have you been the last 8 years? Obama made any kind of sense to anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Sure, if the elections are actual reflections of the peoples' choice. But they're not. On the Republican side this time around there were 16 or more choices. More voters chose Trump. On the Dem side it was more pre-determined with Hillary running against only a few. Not many were willing to oppose her so in her case I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 On the Republican side this time around there were 16 or more choices. More voters chose Trump. On the Dem side it was more pre-determined with Hillary running against only a few. Not many were willing to oppose her so in her case I agree with you. The differences between the Republican and Democratic parties are purely theater at this stage and are only visible during campaign cycles and rhetoric. How each party governs once in office is largely the same (i.e. not in the best interest of the people) because both parties are owned by the same big moneyed interests who are actually dictating policy -- and those interests have no party affiliation or loyalty despite the hype. Keep everyone fighting with one another, keep everyone distracted with the banal and the frivolous, do that loudly enough and no one notices the emperor has no clothes until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 The differences between the Republican and Democratic parties are purely theater at this stage and are only visible during campaign cycles and rhetoric. How each party governs once in office is largely the same (i.e. not in the best interest of the people) because both parties are owned by the same big moneyed interests who are actually dictating policy -- and those interests have no party affiliation or loyalty despite the hype. Keep everyone fighting with one another, keep everyone distracted with the banal and the frivolous, do that loudly enough and no one notices the emperor has no clothes until it's too late. Do you have proof of this? Please explain how the coal and oil & gas industries have dictated policies over the last 7 years. Please explain how the financial industry dictated their fate. Then you can let me know if the insurance industry is having buyers' remorse after folding on ACA. Maybe you can shed the light about cable companies and telcos embrace of net neutrality. It's not a secret that lobbyists use leverage to gain a favorable position for their industries. But that's a far cry from saying they control the outcome no matter who sits in the big chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts