This thread is funny now
When he won I came back to it and noticed that just by sheer coincidence I had posted it on what would be two years to inauguration day, and the first page, really first few, are funny. We're all (and I include myself) so completely dismissive and mocking of the idea. Not even of him winning it all, even just the nomination, especially after his glorious entrance down the escalator. So I figured a few weeks ago when the day came it'd be a funny little time capsule to revisit of ourselves in simpler times.Probably been waiting for this day for awhile now.
It's not just stupid people. People whom you might consider normal or even smart tend to insert their own ideal version of what those details could be, on their own. It's a common aspect of human psychology, and one of the tools of persuasion and selling.
Those quotes are too much.
I wish I had a time machine, to go back in time to tell everyone on Gaf that trumps gonna winand then proceed to get shit on by everyone in the thread and probably banned.
How much of the popular vote did Churchill win?
Churchill won in 1951. Though he was quite ill-suited for party leadership and elections.
He was never voted in. He was appointed after Chamberlain resigned during the outbreak of the war and only after Lord Halifax turned down the offer to become Prime Minister.
Churchill was more or less chosen by members of the Parliament and the King because of his proven military leadership. However, while he was perfect for the job as PM during wartime, it was pretty expected he would have to leave after as nobody saw him as a fitting leader during peace.
So, in short, he won by technicality of some whole other governing body other than people's democratic choice, sorta like Trump.
He was never voted in. He was appointed after Chamberlain resigned during the outbreak of the war and only after Lord Halifax turned down the offer to become Prime Minister.
Churchill was more or less chosen by members of the Parliament and the King because of his proven military leadership. However, while he was perfect for the job as PM during wartime, it was pretty expected he would have to leave after as nobody saw him as a fitting leader during peace.
So, in short, he won by technicality of some whole other governing body other than people's democratic choice, sorta like Trump.
Churchill of our time? Makes sense. Churchill was an awful person who was incorrectly idolised too.
Churchill won in 1951. Though he was quite ill-suited for party leadership and elections.
This thread is a historical document
it comes to the general election, he has essentially no chance no matter who the Democratic nominee may be.
If you care about progressive ideals, you should be doing everything you can to pump up this moron.
I read that as Triumph and was wondering how a puppet could run for president.
Tonight Putin's bitch will be inaugurated as the President of the United States.
How the fuck did we come to this.
yeah and he had hookers pee on a bed for him cause I read it on the internet!
Tonight Putin's bitch will be inaugurated as the President of the United States.
How the fuck did we come to this.
Lol there's no classified document or secret knowledge that it takes to see that Trump has his nose firmly up Putin's ass.
Not entirely surprising, I can see that people voted for him after leading the country to victory in a World War. But yeah, from what I read, he was not that great for much else if England wasn't under siege.
how about a wait and see approach? He is not even the President yet. You have four full years to take a big sniff yourself.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
― Winston Churchill
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
― Winston Churchill
"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than evil is. Against evil, one can protest; it can be exposed and, if necessary, stopped with force. Evil always carries the seed of its own self-destruction, because it at least leaves people with a feeling of uneasiness. But against stupidity, we are defenseless. Neither with protest nor with force can we do anything here; reasons have no effect. Facts that contradict ones own prejudice need only to be disbelieved in such cases stupid people even become critical, and when facts are unavoidable, they can simply be swept aside as meaningless isolated cases. Stupid people, in contrast to evil ones, are satisfied with themselves. Indeed, they become dangerous in that they may easily be stimulated to go on the attack. Therefore, more care must be taken in regard to stupidity than to evil "
---Dietrich Bonhoeffer, anti-Nazi dissident