Caecus

Trump isn't a !@#$ing moron

94 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

We'll see.

You know debate 101 so know to call out certain things. However while asking for facts is generally a solid move, not so much on something where facts are not required. What we know factually are the events that have happened. Trump has done many and if you deny that then well, so Trump beat you guys while messing up constantly? How bad and stupid are you guys then? Anyway, those moves were either done via some competence or Trump is simply a very lucky fellow indeed. My personal opinion is that such a run of luck lasting more than a year is unlikely. Trump is an expert promoter and is very pro-wrestling when it comes to his promos. It would seem when it comes to policy and fine details he isn't very good in such matters however the elements I talked about seem undeniable to me. If you have a counter point you are free to tell us how Trump was finished by X, Y, and Z and how low approval ratings translated to him losing the election. If you ever decided to actually leave your crazed state you'd realise I have never tried to hold Trump up as some perfect man, he has many faults certainly, however there certainly is things he is competent in and fortunate for him they are important things when it comes to elections.  

Of course you're an extremest. You have Trump on the brain because he made a loser out of you and refuse to be reasonable when he is the subject. Even when forced to give him props you try to take it away by crediting someone else instead. You are being fallacious all over the place. You think because you and other such losers think Trump is incompetant that such a thing matters. The other half of the country thinks Trump is competent. So that fallacious reasoning doesn't work. Evidence does exist of Trump being competant so you are being dishonest, him pulling a masterstroke and humiliating you guys at every turn for a start. However even if true just because it is not A does not mean it will be B. The matter of competence, of intelligence, of skill, is not so easily summed up. Trump could well be incompetent in some matters and a genius in others.

You're disintegrating all over the place. Calm down, take deep breaths, and start talking like a non-crazed person please. Trump beat you and that is frustrating I know, get over it. 

I see now. Lol. This is making a lot more sense. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Caecus said:

I see now. Lol. This is making a lot more sense. 

Oh do go on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
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...

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now