You are, but why would you admit it? No, instead you'd rather deflect to asking me if I'd let my daughter date him. Good on you. As expected of someone who goes by the name "Machiavellian". Now put those goalposts back.

So basically you have no answer.  Either you accept his statement and believe it means nothing or you do not.  You can call it whatever you want but what you did not do is answer the question.

He didn't say maybe. He said he assumes some are good people among those coming into the country illegally. Out of context or in this conversation if you said "maybe your mom is not a whore", then you'd probably get a warning or a ban. Now, a discussion concerning a rise in prostitution among 50-60 women that included that? I'd assume it meant you didn't think my mom was a whore.

So if I said I assume your mom isn't a whore how is that any better.  Whether is maybe, assume or whatever your choice its the phrasing that means the most.  

What's that? A comment on a Trump policy instead of just calling him racist? Color me surprised. I'm not an economist, but I would assume the President of the United States (who has shown in the past that he defers to the wisdom of people who know what they're doing, such as with his chance from a wall to a fence at the suggestion of border control) would probably have a guy in his cabinet who knows a little more about economics than I, a dip who just gets exhausted from all the Trump Anxiety people try to spread, or you, a guy who thought the name Machiavellian was a good faith name for someone arguing politics.

Where have I ever called Trump a racist.  I guess you have never read any of my post because I do not believe Trump is a racist, I believe he is an opportunist.  Also you do not need to be a racist to be prejudice but that's another story.  Next you assume that Trump who has no polical experience would make sure he has a guy in his babinet who knows more about economics.  I guess you can keep assuming instead of knowing since it doesn't take to much effort to find that bit of info out.

And then a 180 back to the inane. What's amoral about a wall? What about their plans are stupid? How are they idiots? Are you just going to throw a bunch of insults around and make an attempt at moral posturing, or are you going to make a point?

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.  What wall.  There is nothing within my post that talks about a wall.  Did you just totally ignore what I stated and interjected what you believed I said because this whole statement lost me.

And again, insults. This time without the moral posturing at least, but now it's just insults. "Trump's plans are bad because he's dumb". Great argument, genius, I'm totally convinced.

Yes, that is exactly my opinion, what you did not do is provide any argument to show how I am wrong.  You did not show how any of the things I listed shows anything that he knows what he is doing but I pretty much knew you wouldn't.

"A con job". I suppose that's a better argument than "he dumb".

Nope, he is still an idiot.

A quick google into that one about the Steel Industry shows a back-and-forth between Trump and never-Trump that I don't care to get into. There are reports from October that show surges, and reports of "insiders" from January that clash with what Trump claims... Seems like something worthy of a discussion, but it doesn't seem like something I would drop into a "Trump bad" column so readily.

This has nothing to do with never Trump.  I am not sure exactly what you are researching.  This has to do with bringing back Steel to the US.  and the effect of the Tariffs on that plan.  This is not political just numbers.

Can you? Because you've really only made one solid point about trade tariffs another another hot-take point about the nuance currently surrounding the steel industry. Instead, you just called him and his administration dumb a lot, which makes it seem more like you watch Maddow a lot rather than actual news. It seems your homework comes from one kind of source rather than a spread of sources, and the result is the thought process that insulting someone a lot makes you correct. Which would make you more like Trump than you'd probably like to admit.

As I stated we could do this in another thread.  I have no interest in going off tangent within this thread with a long post on his policy.  I do have to say I love how you threw Maddow into your point.  As always, with most people who defend Trump, you always believe someone has to be a Democrat, watch CNN, MSNBC or whatever.  You have no clue what my source comes from because you have done no homework yourself.  As to me calling Trump an idiot, its because that is my opinion.  No sense in pussyfooting about it.  One thing I have not seen from you is defending why you believe he isn't.

And for the record, I voted for Bernie and never watched any of Trump's shows. I knew the "you're fired" meme and that he was in Home Alone, but that was the extent of my knowledge concerning Trump before he was elected. I just get tired of the Trump Derangement Syndrome that the media has stirred up in people. It was annoying when Fox did it to Obama, and it's even more annoying when everyone else does it to Trump. Argue policies and research statements. An insult isn't a valid substitution for an argument.

It would be hard to vote for Bernie since he was not on the ticket for President.  The difference between you and I is that I did a lot of research on Trump when he was in the Republican Primaries because he was the front runner.  I did more after that once he was nominated for the GOP party.  I went to his web site and compared all his points to Clinton.  I watched a number of his rallies to get an ideal on his policy.  

What I see from you is what I see from another person in this thread, who always blames the media for not approving of Trump.  It's everyone else fault besides him and that is the derangement Syndrome I see.  

In general, what men want most is sex, and what woman want most is resourcefulness (safety). If a woman wants a man, she needs to be able to satisfy him sexually, and the more satisfied he is, the more resourceful he will become (unless he ever hits a limit). If a man wants a woman, all he has to do is be seen as more resourceful than other men, and he will get his choice of woman, and will get to make more decisions about how the relationship operates. (obviously other things come into play but they aren't near as important as the main factor for most)

A resourceful man who chooses a woman knows what he wants and is going to get it or will leave the woman because he can easily acquire another one. A sexually satisfying woman is going to get what she wants or she will leave the man because she can easily acquire another one. Both will have to compromise along the way because neither can have everything the way they would always like.

Woman and men don't just fall in love because there's 'magic in the air', they fall in love because both satisfy each other's needs, whatever those may be, and because they are both willing to sacrifice what's necessary. Love itself isn't even necessary in a relationship, especially if the point isn't to directly please each other, but to indirectly help each other in some other manner. No relationship is perfect, and no relationship is a life sentence. 

Trump conned the most powerful nation on Earth into making him President apparently. If he's one of the lower tier cons, I'd hate to see what one of the top tier is capable of.

Well, the bestestest argument of all time. If you don't like Mexican immigrants, why don't you go to canada? If you like capitalism so much, why don't you go to China (do the research, China is ultracapitalist)? If you like no socialized health care, why don't you go to Singapur? If you do like overacting leaders so much, why don't you go to Hungary with Victor Orban?

Many people leave their country when they are dissatisfied with their own, look what’s happening at the souther border or all the Muslim immigrant going to Europe.

You probably meant "state appropriation of all businesses", the word "all" is very important because almost all capitalist economies have some state owned businesses. The second sentence is also wrong, "state appropriation of all businesses" is the very first step in socialism and not a last resort, there is no socialism without the public ownership ( through the state or Worker cooperatives) of almost all businesses.

So Bernie missing this core characteristic of socialism in his policies is very important.

Yes you would not want to see what a top tier con artist could do.  Do not worry, they are already in government and have been playing this game for a very long time.  Putting idiots into power has always been one of their major strengths.  The interesting part will be can they do it a second time.  The odds are good as long as Trump and the economy doesn't falter before election time.  My money is that Trump will screw it up coming down the stretch.  

In what ranking is California the worst and they were the best?