Well...I can say that on the 'other' site when they piled on my candidate, making it personal and hammering away, there's a thresh hold to tolerating that.... especially when it becomes a ganged up response and the thread is flooded with insults ....The choices are only to either leave the threads or strike back.
People don't get dressed in the morning with a shirt that reads "walk all over me".......rather they often show a great deal of tolerance....but as mentioned that has limits. ......and the response is NOT a meltdown......it's the line has been crossed and time to call it as it is because it needs the saying of, and that usually doesn't happen until all the warnings to back off have been ignored.
Several who oppose Trump here are of the same cut as those who opposed Cruz there.....no different then the crowd at FR........and the threads are beginning to look like them....you can see the slow buildup and then it just takes off. That same "climate change" is happening here.....
IMO every Freeper who came here was an invited guest, and most were looking for some sanity in this election race, others were looking for a place to keep venting their frustrations ....Frankly doing so generally leads those to face the reality of this race and determine what they are going to do about that. ....This site certainly offered me the opportunity to air and work through the concerns I had to arrive at the conclusion I have chosen.... and for that I'm grateful.....Some will continue to take their stand otherwise, but they should not be throwing fire at those who do not agree with their.."critical thinking" when it's anything but that.
If you own property and your invited guests begin to trash that property you have every right to defend it.....and that's just the way it is and certainly understood should be so......
@R4 TrumPence
You have calmly resolved to compromise, deny, or rationalize whatever pesky principles you may have had to come to the conclusion you wish to support the candidate. I understand the 'lesser evil' concept, and in the past have fallen victim to that dichotomy. I see you seem to be at ease with that, and sincerely hope you find whatever fulfillment you seek there.
Some of us will not go quietly into that night, if we go at all. We have decided, after repeatedly doing the same thing and somehow expecting a different result, to try something different. We are not voting for those who embrace and even practice what we find repugnant, even if they do purport to agree on the fundamentals of some issues.
Sadly, the compromise the candidate made which is most off-putting was not one on a specific issue, but one of honesty. The candidate continues to display this fundamental lack, even in small things, which belies a deeper problem, no matter how well concealed by glitz, co-conspirators, attorneys, exuberantly optimistic fans, or the media. If a candidate will lie about little things when they don't have to, then they have betrayed a fundamentally adversarial relationship with the truth.
I am not so naive as to expect every statement of intent from a candidate to be gospel, but I do expect when they say they support a position for them to do so, at least voice requests to the appropriate branch or agency of government to make it so. What I did not expect was a tirade of untruths to be unleashed against another candidate, in succession, timed and of the type to most negatively affect the contest at hand, for the sole purpose of character assassination and to dominate media time which could have been devoted to issues. It has been said there is no such thing as bad press, and for those who simply want to be seen, that may be, but for someone for whom integrity is paramount, bad press is bad press, and a lot of bad press, especially based on falsehoods, is a problem.
It is that fundamental wrong, which while I cannot right it, I can damn sure not support the source. And I will not. Other reasons exist as well, but the fundamental element of trust simply does not exist.
I don't support Hillary, either, so let's get that canard off the table, but I know she will be a crook. I know she will try to subvert the Constitution in ways that her opponent has supported in the past, in fact, he has supported
her, herself, in her quest for political power and the benefits which come with it.
This does not engender trust either, nor any faith in his alleged epiphanies to conservatism.
So I am left with no meaningful choice, perhaps, as elections go, but there are millions like me, perhaps more after my State and ten others were handed the foul end of the stick and ignored in their petition to the chair at the Convention. Many people are reconsidering their support for the GOP now, even more than those here who simply did not like the candidate.
Were this dissatisfaction gathered into a third party, that party would have an effect, and quite possibly grow as those who have supported the GOP candidate inevitably experience 'buyers remorse' should he be elected. (I have little doubt, if he fails to be elected, that the blame will be directed at those of us who said he was unsuitable from the start, by the hardcore 40% of the GOP (and crossovers) who voted for him in the primaries who simply could not sell our souls to support him.)
