Can you name any Trump supporter on Atlas who meets all the following?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

-Is generally calm and rational.
-Does not try to unskew polls showing Trump performing poorly.
-Similarly does not cherry pick polls showing Trump performing well and baselessly dismissing all others as junk.
-Does not try to spin every single crazy action of Trump as actually brilliant.
-Does not try to defend every single one of Trump's gaffes and argue that he's actually correct and what he said proves that he's a genius.
-Analyzes the election and electoral math from a pure statistical standpoint and not just in terms of blind love and hackery of their candidate.

...actually I'm having a tough time thinking of a Trump supporter who fits even ONE of those.

[Mr. Morden]

How are you defining "Trump supporter"?  Aren't there a couple of folks here who didn't want Trump to be nominated and don't think he'd be a very good president, but say they support him in the GE because he's less bad than Hillary Clinton?  Would such a person count as a "Trump supporter" for the purposes of your question?

[tmthforu94]

I'd like to think that I meet those requirements, so yes.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'd like to think that I meet those requirements, so yes.

I thought you were Never Trump completely.

[IceSpear]

Sanchez?

[President Johnson]

Sanchez. Sentander and Ljube also hit at least some points. But I would name myself also for these reasons:

-Is generally calm and rational: I think I am, although I like to be a little sarcastic about Trump's critics. I don't insult people (only some outside the forum). I consider myself rational (likely even more on topics nor concerning Trump).

-Does not try to unskew polls showing Trump performing poorly. Well, those showing him at 33% can't be serious. Hilldog at 40% or so is also nonsense. Both will end up with 45%+. Trump only 8% ahead in Texas is also, I'm sorry, nonsense.

-Similarly does not cherry pick polls showing Trump performing well and baselessly dismissing all others as junk. I don't dismiss all where he's behind. Just those, where he does very poor. Or see the point above.

-Does not try to spin every single crazy action of Trump as actually brilliant. No, some things were not smart. The judge with Mexican heritage for example. Mocking the disabled reporter was also bad. And the thing with Cruz' father. I also dismiss his conspiracy about Obama's birth, although he didn't bring it up on the campaign trail.

-Does not try to defend every single one of Trump's gaffes and argue that he's actually correct and what he said proves that he's a genius. I haven't defended on ALL he's done. And I DON'T agree with Trump on all issues (climate change, health care and gun control in parts, some regulations (Dodd-Frank), the muslim ban, though he backed down now).

-Analyzes the election and electoral math from a pure statistical standpoint and not just in terms of blind love and hackery of their candidate. Of course his path to 270 is tougher. However, I'm optimistic. If his supporters don't believe in him, who else except himself and his family does?

[Antonio the Sixth]

-Is generally calm and rational.

By definition, a Drumpf supporter cannot be rational (unless they stand to benefit directly from his success, but nobody on the forum does afaik).

[President Johnson]

-Is generally calm and rational.

By definition, a Drumpf supporter cannot be rational (unless they stand to benefit directly from his success, but nobody on the forum does afaik).

It's always a matter of the point of view. I'm in favor of legal instead of illegal immigration, a strong border against illegals and drug dealers, where people can come in legally. I'm in favor of someone who takes on special interests and doesn't care about political correctness. I'm in favor of renegotiating trade deals who proved to be a disaster for the US and ripped workers off, I'm in favor of lower taxes for the middle class and small businesses, I'm against being the world's policeman and against another neocon in the White House. Enough of politicans like Hilldog, who are dishonest and think that they're in title of special treatment and who beg for donations at Wall Street (all aside the fact that she's boring while Big Don has a great sense of humor (though that's only my opinion)).

[White Trash]

Johnson, I think you fit all of the above points as well.

[Crumpets]

No, but I can't think of many Atlasians who don't at least occasionally violate one of these with their preferred candidate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sanchez comes closest.

[Badger]

No. Just no.

and pres johnson is delusional

[President Johnson]

No, but I can't think of many Atlasians who don't at least occasionally violate one of these with their preferred candidate.

I think that's natural. Being 100% neutral is always more difficult, when you're in favor of one particular side.

[Higgs]

I think I fit all of them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Johnson's posts are performance art. He isn't a serious TRUMP supporter.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious. That disqualifies Tmthforu94. It's also difficult to see how it's rational for a member of a traditionally oppressed community to support one of the most transparently bigoted candidates to run for president in recent years, so that's kind of another strike against him.

It's a strike against Milo, too, who seems to be serious in his Trump support. Otherwise, though, Milo probably best fits the bill. And it just astounds me.

[Ljube]

I think I fit all of them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious.

Yes. Constructive criticism of a candidate is one thing. Restoring to chep and lame stuff like this makes your entire argument useless.

[Ljube]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious.

Yes. Constructive criticism of a candidate is one thing. Restoring to chep and lame stuff like this makes your entire argument useless.

Why? She is crooked. There is no doubt about it.
The people using that term are just telling it like it is, without PC filter.

[ElectionsGuy]

One has already posted in this thread.

[Kingpoleon]

Johnson, I think you fit all of the above points as well.

I agree.

I would say SillyAmerican, but he's supporting Gary Johnson.

[Virginiá]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious.

Yes. Constructive criticism of a candidate is one thing. Restoring to chep and lame stuff like this makes your entire argument useless.

Why? She is crooked. There is no doubt about it.
The people using that term are just telling it like it is, without PC filter.

Being anti-PC isn't an excuse to resort to elementary school-level insults while trying to win a debate, nor is it an excuse to insult anyone you want any time you want.

[Ljube]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious.

Yes. Constructive criticism of a candidate is one thing. Restoring to chep and lame stuff like this makes your entire argument useless.

Why? She is crooked. There is no doubt about it.
The people using that term are just telling it like it is, without PC filter.

Being anti-PC isn't an excuse to resort to elementary school-level insults while trying to win a debate, nor is it an excuse to insult anyone you want any time you want.

Virginia, it can't be an insult if it's the truth.

[JerryArkansas]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious.

Yes. Constructive criticism of a candidate is one thing. Restoring to chep and lame stuff like this makes your entire argument useless.

Why? She is crooked. There is no doubt about it.
The people using that term are just telling it like it is, without PC filter.

Being anti-PC isn't an excuse to resort to elementary school-level insults while trying to win a debate, nor is it an excuse to insult anyone you want any time you want.

Virginia, it can't be an insult if it's the truth.

But what you think is truth and what really is lies across a great chasm which you and others can't reach across.

[Higgs]

You can't be calm and rational if you've ever used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" in a post that you might otherwise consider serious.

Yes. Constructive criticism of a candidate is one thing. Restoring to chep and lame stuff like this makes your entire argument useless.

Why? She is crooked. There is no doubt about it.
The people using that term are just telling it like it is, without PC filter.

Being anti-PC isn't an excuse to resort to elementary school-level insults while trying to win a debate, nor is it an excuse to insult anyone you want any time you want.

Virginia, it can't be an insult if it's the truth.

But what you think is truth and what really is lies across a great chasm which you and others can't reach across.

I really don't like the insults and nicknames either, they're childish and cheap. But c'mon, you think only Trump supporters do this? 'Crooked Hillary' isn't nearly as the bad as the nicknames evergreen and some others have given Trump. Trump may have started it, but supporters of both sides are equally guilty in these kind of stupid attacks.