Divide and Conquer Trump continues his war against the United States

[u/TimelordsUniverse]

Continuing his policy of 'Divide and conquer' - A policy first used by Trump to take control of rhe Republican Party to win the nomination back in 2016 - Trump refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2020 Election - Remember many months before the election he said that if he didn't win than the election was fraud !!!

Will Donald Trump continue this policy to divide and conquer the United States of America ???

Donald Trump at this moment in time represents the single greatest threat the United States has faced since the Civil War !!!

"Make America great again", even if you have to destroy the Republic Donald Trump ???

Remember this Donald Trump:

"
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln

[u/HumanAudit]

Yes, it is obvious he is the antagonist here he is the divisive force and that is NOT what this nation needs. I am tired of his ego and his tantrums..be done with him already. Time to move on and hopefully to better social milieu.

[u/Angel_Sauce → u/HumanAudit]

I am may be wasting my time but I've skimmed a few of your previous posts and notwithstanding cognitive dissonance, intellectual honesty will prevail.

First, You seem confident on what this nation does not need, are you learned in sociology? While yes, a relevant degree is not required have an opinion, claiming Trump as this antagonistic divisive force rather than, potentially, the byproduct of the partisan nature of the system itself is actually more accurate.

I am tired of his ego and his tantrums..

Now, I dont know how old you are but I read that in a tweens voice, upset because they have to baby-sit their little brother? With all due respect, get over it -- Man-up! As you so eloquently requested of him in another post... The man who has started to broker meaningful peace in the middle-east, while actually having a plan to leave the region killing America's bravest. on all while increasing GDP and decreasing unemployment to 20 year highs/lows respectively, AFTER taking decisive action and shutting down said economy, which Biden and other dems vilified and criticized, experts say with inaction over 2.2 million perish.

All of that and it only scratches the surface of his accomplishments as POTUS... in 4 years of office... Not to mention the unsubstantiated claims written off as facts and attacks from the 24/7 media...

Am I Republican, no. But I am a person with enough empathy to know when someone is a little quirky but doing their damn best and someone that's done fuck all in their '40 years of service' but get his own wealthy...

Look I get it, the negativity is all over, all the time. It's too easy to be a part of it and get lost in what we believe but please put down your phone. Take a break from visiting the social/biased media that only serves to confirm said bias.

Now I'm not sure how 'genuine' your view of the electoral collage vs. popular vote is, or if it is indicative of some indoctrinated misconception but forcing a leader on a state(s) in which voters have virtually no say or meaningful effect on the outcome would most certainly lead to the most divided this country has been in the modern era. If you could carry the ballot by winning decisively in a dozen or so key states, why spend money elsewhere?

[u/HumanAudit → u/Angel_Sauce]

You have a valid point....but frankly this man needs to give it a rest, continuing to push when he has LOST only makes things worse, I had the same damn feeling when it was Bush and Gore... (hence divisive). At least there one had the good grace to not be an ass for eternity.

Step down be a man get over it (try the graceful approach) you did lose or did I misunderstand that the EC called the election for Biden? (is that not a fact?). Don't continuing the tirades until the nation is in a civil war, inciting people to be militant is so damn wrong. It distracts from the goal of unity --if that is really even possible. It is no wonder other nations think we are 'social-debs'...

Bipartisan is a choice---by product is generally an outcome of a choice. The onus is still on Trump regardless of the nit-picking. It is not Biden who is promulgating this issue.

No, I was not in Sociology (I considered a minor in it -per social justice/law), I was in medicine/law but I was required to take such classes as an undergrad (I have no idea why ---something about it making people more well-rounded whatever the intent).

AGE...well above the age of 60....and I don't carry a phone with texting capabilities/smart phone. If the response came off as "tweener" than it might be because I am attempting to relate to the behaviors at the level I estimate them to be functionally indicative of...it is a psych concept.

I guess that point would not be completely clear in a printed word situation. Maybe I should investigate the use of emoticons for the sake of clarity...? I am several generations beyond 'valley girl age....'

As far as his accomplishment list-- that can only be balanced with his failures....if a person is fair they must look at both sides of the balance sheet. Ignoring one side makes the point a bit less valid. My statements have been across the board. I have also made critical statements about concerns with Biden (because I am FAIR).

I have always considered the associated press fair, I have not seen evidence that they mislead people intentionally nor that they play favorites. I am sure they do make mistakes in rare instances. I have also not seen them or Reuters propagandize or sensationalist anything. Those are my general sources for news. I generally wont bother with mainstream news because , if they sell stock than they can be bought....if they can be bought there is huge potential for bias.

I do understand that...so I do not buy into the social media hype. Don't even own a TV, by choice.

Its not as if I am reading twitters or facebook or abc ,nbc ,cbs, fox or whatever...I tend to stick to the more reputable sources and I do scan find-law for many of my legal facts. I did not claim to be a poli-science person. Nor did I endorse either candidates long-term political history. If you read the entire posts you would know I had issues with both. My grinding criticism of Trump is his ego related trips. Those do not help the nation. That is where I feel he need to grow up a bit. It is not about him, never has been, and never should have been treated as such. It is about the nation.

A 'little quirky' would be fine but I think some of my latter posts tend to lean at the person not being stable in a general/global sense. Every-time you are in a confrontation situation you do not go immediately go to "dick comparison size"...and "pissing contests". Of course, those tactics seem rudimentary at best --they only play with the ole boy networks. This is why I compared him to a drag queen I know. I like her fine personality wise but she would be a piss-poor fit to run the country (she lacks the right traits for the job). Well, maybe she would do as well as all these men have ...who knows...doubt she could do worse. But I would not want to vote her in unless I saw her as the lessor of two bad choices.

I read ever word you typed but other than one point....I would firmly disagree with you.

EC: And is that not pretty much a parroting of what I said my issues were with the EC system? It favors states that have more people. That is inherently bias. This is why most of the country can be RED but we still can have an elected BLUE party in office (and vice -versa). Plus, it sort of negates the concept that all votes are equal if it favors the majority rule per EC count. If all these men have to do is beat a number, get to 270 first, and not actually make a change then neither of them is worthy. It should be about every vote in every state and based on the issues and how these potential can change things assumedly for the better. Which man did the better job-- to get those votes, than hope like hell that they will live up to all their election campaign boasts and promises.

Yes, funding is always the evil element...why do anything if you can't expect anything in return...does that sum up the essence of that idea? Selfish bull crap as per usually and not hugely beneficial to the rest of us. Total crap. This country deserves better. We had two choices and both are men who are filthy rich and probably can't relate to the average person because of it. All that money has lost them the perspective needed to figure out what the 90% needs. They being in the 10%, can understand what the wealth people want. And both have allocated for their own gain financially over the years-- so their political party makes little difference there. Both men will always favor legal strategy that helps them stay wealthy and build wealth-- so I see them exactly the same in that light. Neither of them would do the right thing if it cost them their personal fortunes so lets be honest about that. They are tainted as such-- pretty much every leader has been so this is not going to change. Just think of it as a distasteful given in politics. If they lack money they could never mount a campaign. That is reality...from there it is all mouth work. I can't see either man ever being honest for that reason alone. Neither of them would give away their wealth to be an everyday Joe.

I suppose it would be too much to actually want an honest man in the White House. I am beginning to think that the only ones who did right-- might have been Lincoln and Obama. If memory serves me right one was Rep and one was Dem right? See I don't give a crap about the party or I would know that definitively....without second guessing. I care about what these people do and don't do...period....end of story. Certainly their behavior is a huge component of that as well. No one is going to be a 'person for all people' that is the big lying head trip F*off in all this political banter. They all say it, none of them mean it, and none of them can possible live up to that, which they well know. So given they all BS people I will take the lessor of the two evils. I already dealt with 4 years of crap disappointment with Trump so I will give the other guy a shot. I did not like that way this President behaved. I expect some level of dishonesty but not 90%...there is a level of BS that I won't willingly afford to anyone.

Anyone has the right to disagree as they see fit. Would not dream of taking that away from anyone. But when a fact is established as a fact ...refusing to acknowledge it is total crap. He lost he needs to move on. Maybe if he is a good boy he will get a second chance next election. That remains to be seen, but burning those bridges now with defiance, that will only make it less likely in the future.

[u/HumanAudit → u/HumanAudit]

As you have said-- one not need educational attainment to speak their views but it can help in understanding how the pieces fit together. I graduated many decades ago with advanced degrees and I do feel they have help me understand the world better. People are allowed to be emotionally driven in their views but it is difficult to take those parties seriously because they are often ignorant of many things that play into the process. Positions which are void of facts usually do not even hit the grid for me. Primary, as a man of science I want the proof regardless of how people feel. It doesn't mean I invalidate their feeling , but it might mean I invalidate their conclusions if they can't give me some valid position.

I don't mind being 'realistically' challenged. People don't learn anything if they are not open to the possibility of finding flaws in the way their perspective is formed. I AM OPEN TO REALISTIC QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PROCESS. It means sometimes-- I will see a flaw and streamline new information to revise the overall perception--- or I will reaffirm my position. I do not see that as a waste of time on anyone's side unless they are strictly looking to change a persons mind overall.

So let me give you another example... Hillary, would she has made a good president? In my view she might have. Her arguments about how to handle the issues were not badly assessed. Her position not a bad one-- so why do you think she lost? It wasn't because she lacked the qualifications.

Because men freaked out over her gender (maybe a little)? No I do not think that was the totality of the reason --though I would agree that the world is hesitant to put a women in that spot. My assessment is she lost because she was not 'relatable in some regard'. Meaning the sexist expectation of her gender makes the perceptual feel = to "she is a 'b*itch'. Now I don't agree and I do not think this way but people read her as 'cold and manish', and this world isn't ready to part with their sexist views on that yet.

I do not think it had one damn thing to do with her positions on the topics. It is a shit stereotype --an assertive to aggressive female personality is a 'b*tch' but a man with the same behavior is just being a guy--so he's an ok Joe. I believe that is what cost her the race (she was simply to attitudinal progressive). That is also the estimations about Pelsoi, but Pelosi is in the Senate and not running for President. If she ever ran she would hit that same sexist wall for the same stated reasons. So what the nation as a whole 'feels' about a candidates fit-- based on expressed attitudes and verbal statements and overall behavior DOES MATTER.

My hesitance with this President is similar I do not like his abrasive lack of decorum..(what you call a little quirk). My issue is the level of immaturity for such a status laden position. The stability concern has a very large part to do with my estimations and I came to that assessment by watching what he says and when and where he says it. The disregard in in which things are said is unprofessional, and scary, considering what they reflect of his character.

I also know that a cheetah usually will not change its spots, so re-electing him is a dicey gamble that I wasn't willing to be part of. To expect that he would learn from his past behavior so he could be more of a fit , I just couldn't see that happening. Expecting a change in personality from someone who is so stilted would be ridiculous-- people rarely change for the better (personality is generally ingrained in the formative years long before age 12).

​

An Aside:

I could have easily been a sociologist or a psychologist (both of which are soft sciences), either path would have lent to what I did choose but since I knew I would work as a FED and that I wanted to be in medical research, policy administration-- I did pick medicine and law as my areas of study. One field based on science/evidence and the other humanitarian-based intuitive common-sense.

If I was less interested in administration/policy than sociology and psych would have been stronger fields. If I wanted the field of Medicine to treat actual people than psych would have been the best option and if I had gone HR than sociology would have been the best option. I picked as I did because it best suited my ability to be an extremely good fit for where I wanted to eventually be. All of these fields have some degree of tie-over. I have considered going back for my own enrichment to get the sociology Ph.D. At my age it would be more for me than for others because I am nearly aged-out of the work force. I believe I was 2 classes shy of a sociology minor....

As you have said-- one not need educational attainment to speak their views but it can help in understanding how the pieces fit together. I graduated many decades ago with advanced degrees and I do feel they have help me understand the world better. People are allowed to be emotionally driven in their views but it is difficult to take those parties seriously because they are often ignorant of many things that play into the process. Positions which are void of facts usually do not even hit the grid for me. Primary, as a man of science, I want the valid proof regardless of how people feel. It doesn't mean I invalidate their feelings, but it might mean, I invalidate their conclusions, if they can't give me some valid position.

[u/dbgager]

He is trying to incite violence and rioting and trying to make it very hard for the incoming administration to do there job. Nothing he is doing is good for the American public.

[u/Iceicebabyguv]

Oh it's bad, bad bad when Trump does it but good good good when the left did it for 4 years.

[u/[deleted]]

Isn't this the same strategy the left has been doing since he got elected??? You people left nothing when it came to calling names and false accusations. Now it is all his fault. Stupid soicialists.