The Donald Trump Highly Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards - Polidicks

[quote]THERE IS NO COLLUSION![/quote] “I am not a crook!”

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;53061065]I see he likes to use CAPS LOCK to put EMPHASIS on certain WORDS, moreso than he does on tweets at least. I'd like to see an official written address like this tbh[/QUOTE] Maybe Frank Miller had a hand in writing this?

11 admissions of guilt

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53061186]... heroic landslide? Even if he ignore the popular vote, he quite literally just barely clinched a couple of states to win.[/QUOTE] He's trying to gaslight the country, essentially.

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;53061065]I see he likes to use CAPS LOCK to put EMPHASIS on certain WORDS, moreso than he does on tweets at least. I'd like to see an official written address like this tbh[/QUOTE] You could tell me that Chris-Chan wrote it and I'd almost believe you.

[QUOTE=Conro101;53061066]well shit, with all caps like that, how could I not be convinced?[/QUOTE] I know right?! I could have settled for his word alone, but caps lock makes it doubly true!

Not going to lie, this is ridiculous. How much of a baby can one man act like? It's not like the options we had were that great, but holy shit.. All I can say is I regret deeply voting for this man (even though they told me that my vote wasn't considered) and I apologize for even remotely helping bring this man in office.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53061988]Not going to lie, this is ridiculous. How much of a baby can one man act like? It's not like the options we had were that great, but holy shit.. All I can say is I regret deeply voting for this man (even though they told me that my vote wasn't considered) and I apologize for even remotely helping bring this man in office.[/QUOTE] Technically, the options you had were great. I'd love it if Estonian politics boiled down to a fight between "literally one of the worst people to ever live" and "Meh, kinda whatever close enough I guess"

[QUOTE=The Pretender;53061547]Can someone go through these and determine which entries are actually "fake news" and which aren't? I'm unfamiliar with these stories and would genuinely like to know exactly why this is "embarrassing" (other than all the obvious reasons).[/QUOTE] He tries to prove that they are fake with a couple cursory articles and pictures. His proof that the Russian Collusion investigation is a hoax is his own tweet calling it a hoax lol

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53061999]What about his initial campaign enticed you? Not trying to call out or anything, I'm geniunelyu curious to get into the mind of people I make sweeping statements of ignorance about.[/QUOTE] I think it was just wanting to see what someone would do in that position who normally would have no business being in said position (and has clearly proven he had no right to be there). He seemed to have some interesting ideas on bringing in changes surrounding taxes and I was hoping he'd help small businesses. Plus the whole e-mail thing disgusted me, because someone like that having such a security issue was a problem. I know it wasn't the "big picture" but it really did bother me and influence a bit. Obviously I was wrong on a lot of this, and we're paying for it now.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062021]I think it was just wanting to see what someone would do in that position who normally would have no business being in said position.[/QUOTE] Because 'for the lolz' is always a good reason to do things, especially choosing your country's leader. I mean, good on you for realizing you were wrong but man, are you a bit of a stereotype.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53062053]Because 'for the lolz' is always a good reason to do things, especially choosing your country's leader. I mean, good on you for realizing you were wrong but man, are you a bit of a stereotype.[/QUOTE] Excuse me? Considering I was not too impressed prior, it wasn't just for the "lulz". It was to try and get a non-politician in, instead of the usual bullshit. I suggest you don't speak out of your ass with anything like "stereotype".

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062078]Excuse me? Considering I was not too impressed prior, it wasn't just for the "lulz". It was to try and get a non-politician in, instead of the usual bullshit. I suggest you don't speak out of your ass with anything like "stereotype".[/QUOTE] Saying that you wanted someone in a position that “had no business” being in that position is asinine

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53062082]Saying that you wanted someone in a position that “had no business” being in that position is asinine[/QUOTE] I disagree entirely because it's a matter of trying to change up the status quo. If you're not happy with the current state of affairs you try something new. To call it foolish is ridiculous.

This is incredibly low effort... It's like an off brand BuzzFeed top 10(11) article

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062093]I disagree entirely because it's a matter of trying to change up the status quo. If you're not happy with the current state of affairs you try something new. To call it foolish is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] No it isn’t what the fuck. Wanting a new manager is fine. Wanting a new principal is fine. This is someone who controls a nation with the most powerful economy and military, who’s culture has essentially influenced an entire continent, and who’s politics dictate other nation’s foreign policy. Having an unqualified individual no matter how well meaning they are is idiotic.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062093]I disagree entirely because it's a matter of trying to change up the status quo. If you're not happy with the current state of affairs you try something new. To call it foolish is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] It's pretty foolish. This idiot's idea of doing something new is handling out corporate favors at a 300% faster rate than your typical "career" politician.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53062098]No it isn’t what the fuck. Wanting a new manager is fine. Wanting a new principal is fine. This is someone who controls a nation with the most powerful economy and military, who’s culture has essentially influenced an entire continent, and who’s politics dictate other nation’s foreign policy. Having an unqualified individual no matter how well meaning they are is idiotic.[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with wanting an obvious change - hell I hear people who talk about trying to elect a more "people's" man, which is more of the common type. How is that any different from what I'm saying, where you change it up from the typical spoon in mouth politician? It isn't, other than the fact that Trump is a spoon in mouth brat. Regardless you have your opinion and it's obvious you're going to think my thoughts are idiotic. I'm not going to sit and try to explain my thought process to you because it'd be a waste of your time, my time, and my breath. Just know that instantly calling someone stupid and foolish for what they thought was okay is easy in hindsight, and serves no purpose. [editline]18th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53062103]I'd agree with you- if he didn't absolutely demonstrate he is completely unfit for office during the campaign. You just got duped, like too many others.[/QUOTE] Right, and yet Hillary didn't do that great of a job convincing me during her campaign. So it's not like my options were great to begin with.

I never called you stupid. I said the decision was bad. And it was easy. The man repeatedly insulted his constituents, made foolhardy promises, and regularly lied. His entire campaign was built on ripping down previous progress and enacting stupid policies like The Wall and his Muslim ban. [editline]18th January 2018[/editline] What part of that was enticing?

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062107]There is nothing wrong with wanting an obvious change - hell I hear people who talk about trying to elect a more "people's" man, which is more of the common type. How is that any different from what I'm saying, where you change it up from the typical spoon in mouth politician? It isn't, other than the fact that Trump is a spoon in mouth brat. Regardless you have your opinion and it's obvious you're going to think my thoughts are idiotic. I'm not going to sit and try to explain my thought process to you because it'd be a waste of your time, my time, and my breath. Just know that instantly calling someone stupid and foolish for what they thought was okay is easy in hindsight, and serves no purpose. [editline]18th January 2018[/editline] Right, and yet Hillary didn't do that great of a job convincing me during her campaign. So it's not like my options were great to begin with.[/QUOTE] We can both agree that if there was one thing Trump did right during his campaign, it was canvassing and making promises, especially among disaffected Democrats who didn't see much, if any, of the change promised by Obama during his two terms. Personally I'm of the belief that the known evil is better than the unknown quantity sometimes, which is why my support ran towards Clinton during the election process, only getting reinforced by Trump's actions. After Trump won the election, I too held out some hope that maybe he might actually do some good like he promised, but got disillusioned about that fairly quickly. I agree it's no good shutting the stable door after the horse is gone, though. I don't think anybody anticipated that Trump would do what he did on the scale that he did. We all thought he would be a harmless buffoon at worst.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53062112]I never called you stupid. I said the decision was bad. And it was easy. The man repeatedly insulted his constituents, made foolhardy promises, and regularly lied. His entire campaign was built on ripping down previous progress and enacting stupid policies like The Wall and his Muslim ban.[/QUOTE] I apologize for misunderstanding then. Personally I despised the wall and Muslim ban, and I constantly wished he would drop them. I agree it was foolish and dumb on that end to assume such. But yes, if it's the decision you're calling foolish then looking back I can agree. I should have seen the warning signs. However at the time it seemed like the best one. Again, hindsight.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062093]I disagree entirely because it's a matter of trying to change up the status quo. If you're not happy with the current state of affairs you try something new. To call it foolish is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] So you would you let some back alley doctor operate on you instead of a qualified surgeon? After all, it's just changing from the status quo, right? This is not how you change the status quo.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062021]I think it was just wanting to see what someone would do in that position who normally would have no business being in said position (and has clearly proven he had no right to be there). He seemed to have some interesting ideas on bringing in changes surrounding taxes and I was hoping he'd help small businesses. Plus the whole e-mail thing disgusted me, because someone like that having such a security issue was a problem. I know it wasn't the "big picture" but it really did bother me and influence a bit. Obviously I was wrong on a lot of this, and we're paying for it now.[/QUOTE] Are you serious? You thought the man that failed to release his tax returns would change the tax system for the better? How long did you think that one over?

[QUOTE=finbe;53062130]Are you serious? You thought the man that failed to release his tax returns would change the tax system for the better? How long did you think that one over?[/QUOTE] I'd love to see if you're going to start picking things apart like that how Hillary, who thought using her own insecure email server was better than the Government's, would have been fit to handle the secrets? Both had their flaws, don't act like it was cut and dry at the time. To be honest it's easy for you guys to sit here and put the dunce cap on me AFTER the fact, but hell if I've already stated what I realize was a mistake, it doesn't do anything other than paint you as an ass.

I think Nookyava gets the point and deeply regrets it, no need to keep hammering. As much as I hate Trump and most of the people that still support him, there's no need to alienate those who regret voting for him and have switched sides. What's done is done and being a dick to them now isn't going to change anything.

Half of the reason Trump has the level of support he does is that people attack each other for voting for him and they double down simply to feel less like shit. Having respect for the other side and refuting their beliefs is how you bring people around. Attacking and calling them asinine just pushes them away.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062107]There is nothing wrong with wanting an obvious change - hell I hear people who talk about trying to elect a more "people's" man, which is more of the common type. How is that any different from what I'm saying, where you change it up from the typical spoon in mouth politician? It isn't, other than the fact that Trump is a spoon in mouth brat. Regardless you have your opinion and it's obvious you're going to think my thoughts are idiotic. I'm not going to sit and try to explain my thought process to you because it'd be a waste of your time, my time, and my breath. Just know that instantly calling someone stupid and foolish for what they thought was okay is easy in hindsight, and serves no purpose.[/QUOTE] well i'm not gonna call you stupid, but it seems like the majority of voters saw the warning signs and you didn't? i mean chalking it all up to hindsight is kinda shitty when so many people knew it was a mistake [I]before it happened[/I]. and again that doesn't make you stupid, but you were either lied to to or just consciously made a bad call. hindsight doesn't come into it.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53062127]So you would you let some back alley doctor operate on you instead of a qualified surgeon? After all, it's just changing from the status quo, right? This is not how you change the status quo.[/QUOTE] This example's a bit of a straw man, nobody would choose the back alley doctor unless they had no other choice, it's not so clear cut with your presidential or senatorial candidate, who you choose on both subjective and objective grounds. A handful of "let's see how this goes" votes tends to contribute less overall than people just being so apathetic they don't even get out to vote, which had they done, would have had Clinton handily beating the orange man no problem. Gerrymandering was the second major reason the orange man won, which had it been constitutionally illegal in the first place, would never have led to this decision.

[QUOTE=Cone;53062145]well i'm not gonna call you stupid, but it seems like the majority of voters saw the warning signs and you didn't? i mean chalking it all up to hindsight is kinda shitty when so many people knew it was a mistake [I]before it happened[/I]. and again that doesn't make you stupid, but you were either lied to to or just consciously made a bad call. hindsight doesn't come into it.[/QUOTE] It's everything to do with hindsight? [quote]understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed.[/quote] Meaning AFTER the situation I realize it was a mistake. I understand it was. You can't say it isn't. Besides, I obviously wasn't the only one who failed to see the warning signs, and I had to weigh two different options. Keeping in mind influences around me as well as what I seemed to believe at the time, obviously things have changed.

[QUOTE=Nookyava;53062107]Right, and yet Hillary didn't do that great of a job convincing me during her campaign. So it's not like my options were great to begin with.[/QUOTE] This is actually a big part of [URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I&feature=youtu.be&t=9m35s]why Charisma on Command predicted a Trump win[/URL] in May of 2016. Trump banked hard on being an outsider and framed inexperience as being a good thing, and Hillary just inexplicably accepted that premise. I certainly feel we all could have told you how all this would go, and that it should have been clear before the election, but I can understand the sentiment since the re-framing of experience as a bad thing was seemingly left unchallenged by Hillary.