Jump to content

Trump isn't a !@#$ing moron


Caecus
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Oh do go on.

If Hillary campaigned in spandex choke-holding a skinhead in a 20x20 roped enclosure, you would have voted for her, yes? 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Caecus said:

If Hillary campaigned in spandex choke-holding a skinhead in a 20x20 roped enclosure, you would have voted for her, yes? 

??? I don't think you quite understand. I recognise his style and I like how he used it effectively both when it came to his supporters and enemies. Plenty of pro-wrestling people, even those who utterly despise him like Jim Cornette could see it. If Hillary had done the same then yeah, I'd have given her credit for it. Clinton was more the typical robot however which would work great if she was up again say Jeb! Being a charisma vacuum when up against a charismatic performer though? Doesn't work well. There is a reason that in wrestling people with charisma, even if terrible in their ring work, get pushed over people who are simply good in the ring. The person with charisma makes more money, brings more people in, has people more interested in what they're involved in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rozalia said:

??? I don't think you quite understand. I recognise his style and I like how he used it effectively both when it came to his supporters and enemies. Plenty of pro-wrestling people, even those who utterly despise him like Jim Cornette could see it. If Hillary had done the same then yeah, I'd have given her credit for it. Clinton was more the typical robot however which would work great if she was up again say Jeb! Being a charisma vacuum when up against a charismatic performer though? Doesn't work well. There is a reason that in wrestling people with charisma, even if terrible in their ring work, get pushed over people who are simply good in the ring. The person with charisma makes more money, brings more people in, has people more interested in what they're involved in.

Obviously, the depths of my understanding in this area is far inferior to yours. It never even occurred to me someone would judge candidates based on how pro-wrestling they were. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Obviously, the depths of my understanding in this area is far inferior to yours. It never even occurred to me someone would judge candidates based on how pro-wrestling they were. 

It is not about supporting people for how pro-wrestling they are. Those pro-wrestling aspects helped him and hurt Clinton. There is the adage that Clinton would lose support every time she spoke, be it Obama/Sanders/Trump she'd start strong and then degrade over time. Her mic skills were horrible and put people off simply put. Her gimmick in addition if we keep this pro-wrestling thing going was management's handpicked corporate champion which not only is a hated gimmick but a heel one too (you're supposed to boo), heck... heels with such gimmicks usually have a load of people helping them in matches too which makes them look real weak especially when they still lose even though they had 3 guys helping them (in Clinton's case she had the establishment, MSM, and big money interfering in matches for her).

Trump by comparison played a face role, an Austin like face role where he often acted heelish but it was alright as he was over and up against a heel. His mic skills worked people over and people on the fence became more drawn to him. Sure you hate both candidates and are on the fence, but hey, at least Trump is interesting. 

At Electionmania Trump fought a largely one sided fight with Clinton and hit the interfering establishment, MSM, and big money trying to even the odds with devastating stunners before tapping Clinton out with the Walls of Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rozalia said:

It is not about supporting people for how pro-wrestling they are. Those pro-wrestling aspects helped him and hurt Clinton. There is the adage that Clinton would lose support every time she spoke, be it Obama/Sanders/Trump she'd start strong and then degrade over time. Her mic skills were horrible and put people off simply put. Her gimmick in addition if we keep this pro-wrestling thing going was management's handpicked corporate champion which not only is a hated gimmick but a heel one too (you're supposed to boo), heck... heels with such gimmicks usually have a load of people helping them in matches too which makes them look real weak especially when they still lose even though they had 3 guys helping them (in Clinton's case she had the establishment, MSM, and big money interfering in matches for her).

Trump by comparison played a face role, an Austin like face role where he often acted heelish but it was alright as he was over and up against a heel. His mic skills worked people over and people on the fence became more drawn to him. Sure you hate both candidates and are on the fence, but hey, at least Trump is interesting. 

At Electionmania Trump fought a largely one sided fight with Clinton and hit the interfering establishment, MSM, and big money trying to even the odds with devastating stunners before tapping Clinton out with the Walls of Trump.

Politics is suppose to be boring. When did politics become an entertainment sport? 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Caecus said:

Politics is suppose to be boring. When did politics become an entertainment sport? 

You can't understand using something to analyse something else? By the simple enough story structure of Pro-wrestling Clinton was going to be the loser. Others like to use other things, for example they'll look at history, the Roman empire or whatever and proclaim that Trump == X, this and that == Y, so America will == Z. 

When it comes to the storyline, the gimmicks, so on, Clinton is a weak charisma vacuum heel who is facing a boisterous charismatic face. While the heel can get some small victories here and there (with a lot of help), the usual story at the end of it all is they get beat. Heck we can even talk on other things. Trump would talk in front of people and he would talk about "good people" and about how he is going to win and it'll be great, everyone having turned out in large numbers cheers. Clinton infamously couldn't draw unless she had someone big on the card as no one wanted to see her and when she spoke she would talk stupid like the "half of Trump's supporters are deplorables". Do you know who talks like that about the people? Heels. They insult the people.

Your talk of "it's supposed to be boring" is something you don't realise how silly it is. Who wants to look and listen to boring stuff? Most people don't. Give them some fun, add some character, and people love it. More than ever people are talking about it all. Love or hate him, people are so much more interested in the show that is politics due to Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

You can't understand using something to analyse something else? By the simple enough story structure of Pro-wrestling Clinton was going to be the loser. Others like to use other things, for example they'll look at history, the Roman empire or whatever and proclaim that Trump == X, this and that == Y, so America will == Z. 

When it comes to the storyline, the gimmicks, so on, Clinton is a weak charisma vacuum heel who is facing a boisterous charismatic face. While the heel can get some small victories here and there (with a lot of help), the usual story at the end of it all is they get beat. Heck we can even talk on other things. Trump would talk in front of people and he would talk about "good people" and about how he is going to win and it'll be great, everyone having turned out in large numbers cheers. Clinton infamously couldn't draw unless she had someone big on the card as no one wanted to see her and when she spoke she would talk stupid like the "half of Trump's supporters are deplorables". Do you know who talks like that about the people? Heels. They insult the people.

Your talk of "it's supposed to be boring" is something you don't realise how silly it is. Who wants to look and listen to boring stuff? Most people don't. Give them some fun, add some character, and people love it. More than ever people are talking about it all. Love or hate him, people are so much more interested in the show that is politics due to Trump. 

Panem et circenses, eh Commodus? 

Boring is safe. People tend to forget that in long periods of peace and stability. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

Panem et circenses, eh Commodus? 

Boring is safe. People tend to forget that in long periods of peace and stability. 

Boring is also boring. Boring is also status quo. Status quo if things are not working is bad. Boring is bad. 

Also "peace and stability" is up in the air for most people. You can define it as such but that does not mean others will agree. The constant wars that bleed countries dry. The "war" on the poor. The march of identity politics and political correctness. You may well not see it, but to a lot of people there very much is war and instability. Clinton certainly couldn't see it or thought the Democrats "demographic reality" had come to pass, after all there was no race hustler she wouldn't get with which surprise surprise meant even white women didn't vote for her over Trump. Trump tried to appeal to minorities and from what I recall he did better than modern Republicans on that end as a result even with all the nonsense swirling around him, but Clinton completely forsook white folk and paid for that fact. I mean, appealing to everyone regardless of race? You can't do that apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/30/2017 at 4:06 PM, Rozalia said:

Clinton was more the typical robot (Can you explain how she "was" more he typical robot and served as President of the United States? I totally missed that election where she demonstrated her plans for usage of the executive branch of government o experience serving as POTUS eariier?. The only other option is you're lying (p. sure this one) to make Trump look good (which won't happen because he speaks and people hear it and that's pretty much where it stops being an attractive option for those outside his developing personality cult (that's not very popular.) however which would work great if she was up again say Jeb! Being a charisma vacuum when up against a charismatic performer though? Doesn't work well. There is a reason that in wrestling people with charisma, even if terrible in their ring work, get pushed over people who are simply good in the ring. The person with charisma makes more money, brings more people in, has people more interested in what they're involved in. No. The person elected is now whomever is most able to bend themselves over to a larger set of billionare Republicans perfectly willing to dump massive amounts of cash into a candidate no matter their overall fitness entire absence of governmental experience as long as they can continue (in the case of the Walton family) to subsidize their hideously low wages with active help in applying for welfare, which is to say Wal*Mart is using tax dollars meant to assist poor people in desperate need for surviving to ensure their wages, which are apparently low enough to qualify for welfare means as Americans we're all kind of paying Wal*Mart's employees since the Walton family can't appear to be bothered doing things like that when there are so many people to kill in other states with their cars and drunk as can be.

 

On 10/30/2017 at 9:48 PM, Rozalia said:

It is not about supporting people for how pro-wrestling they are. Those pro-wrestling aspects helped him and hurt Clinton. There is the adage that Clinton would lose support every time she spoke, be it Obama/Sanders/Trump she'd start strong and then degrade over time. Her mic skills were horrible and put people off simply put. Her gimmick in addition if we keep this pro-wrestling thing going was management's handpicked corporate champion which not only is a hated gimmick but a heel one too (you're supposed to boo), heck... heels with such gimmicks usually have a load of people helping them in matches too which makes them look real weak especially when they still lose even though they had 3 guys helping them (in Clinton's case she had the establishment, MSM, and big money interfering in matches for her). Are you attempting to use scripted entertainment (the WWF had to finally admit all of its stuff is faked) is the proper method of determining fitness to lead the US?

Trump by comparison played a face role, an Austin like face role where he often acted heelish but it was alright as he was over and up against a heel. His mic skills worked people over and people on the fence became more drawn to him. Sure you hate both candidates and are on the fence, but hey, at least Trump is interesting. 

At Electionmania Trump fought a largely one sided fight with Clinton and hit the interfering establishment, MSM, and big money trying to even the odds with devastating stunners before tapping Clinton out with the Walls of Trump.

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even going to bother explaining what I already did. Milton can't work out that Trump was charismatic while Clinton had negative charisma (losing support every time she spoke lol).

Also apparently thinks WWE being scripted is something worth mentioning and can't understand the simple exercise I played to show that Clinton was completely wrong in how she acted and approached the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, who cares what some random British person thinks of the US election? You hold no role People like Hilary Clinton (that she won the popular vote is pretty good indication). Thank you for your fake quote. WWE is entirely scripted  They had to admit to that about a decade ago. Before that people actually thought it was real or something.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Again, who cares what some random British person thinks of the US election? You hold no role People like Hilary Clinton (that she won the popular vote is pretty good indication). Thank you for your fake quote. WWE is entirely scripted  They had to admit to that about a decade ago. Before that people actually thought it was real or something.

Oh look, discrimination. Milton you are considered the most stupid guy in the game so anyone has more cred than you on anything automatically. You're so bad your own friends come to me and tell me it's all an act so they feel embarrassed less. You also even after my lovely invitation won't post in my 4 wives thread because you are apparently a racist on top of everything else. 

10 years ago? What? If you're going to come at me with that nonsense then you better actually know what you're talking about. The dumbest people on the planet who still think their lame insults towards wrestling are witty. Everyone knows it's scripted and they love it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted insults? I already don't believe you receive these complaints or excuses because anyone who'd know enough would have no issue with anything I've said. I receive a lot of support for bothering you because they don't like you and think you are so easily explained away that it's hilarious. :)

WWF turned WWE. You're correct that it was more than a decade ago, but the substance remains the same.

There's no discrimination unless you have an issue with American elections and the right of the British to vote in them. You can check it with the Federal Election Commission if you'd like confirmation that, as a citizen of the United Kingdom, you have just as little right to vote as I might should I show up to Spain and insist on voting in their elections. If you can't vote your opinion is of no relevance because they hold no effect on elections.

What four wives thread?

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2017 at 7:28 AM, Rozalia said:

Oh look, discrimination. Milton you are considered the most stupid guy in the game so anyone has more cred than you on anything automatically. You're so bad your own friends come to me and tell me it's all an act so they feel embarrassed less. You also even after my lovely invitation won't post in my 4 wives thread because you are apparently a racist on top of everything else. 

10 years ago? What? If you're going to come at me with that nonsense then you better actually know what you're talking about. The dumbest people on the planet who still think their lame insults towards wrestling are witty. Everyone knows it's scripted and they love it. 

If only anything the president did was scripted...

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Caecus said:

If only anything the president did was scripted...

It might be more than you can realise. In wrestling there is such a thing as a worked shoot. In essence a work is something that is scripted. A shoot is something which is not. A worked shoot is when the performer puts on a work in such a way as to have it come off as a shoot. 

Trump has trained you guys so heavily that if he working then he can have it come off as a shoot easily. For example, you have been trained to perceive when he talks with a paper in front of him for that to be a work, hey, he puts on a different voice and mannerisms even as he carefully reads. You have been trained to pick up him as shooting when he does his usual thing. Thing is... he has done his usual thing with papers in front of him too. 

I tell you guys to not underestimate your opponent's intelligence and I'd be careful of thinking you know exactly what is a work and what is a shoot, because he may be working you over with a worked shoot. Don't be a mark. Get smart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rozalia said:

It might be more than you can realise. In wrestling there is such a thing as a worked shoot. In essence a work is something that is scripted. A shoot is something which is not. A worked shoot is when the performer puts on a work in such a way as to have it come off as a shoot. 

Trump has trained you guys so heavily that if he working then he can have it come off as a shoot easily. For example, you have been trained to perceive when he talks with a paper in front of him for that to be a work, hey, he puts on a different voice and mannerisms even as he carefully reads. You have been trained to pick up him as shooting when he does his usual thing. Thing is... he has done his usual thing with papers in front of him too. 

I tell you guys to not underestimate your opponent's intelligence and I'd be careful of thinking you know exactly what is a work and what is a shoot, because he may be working you over with a worked shoot. Don't be a mark. Get smart. 

Covfefe.

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I !@#$ing thought. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.