Trump Can’t Keep Himself From Attacking Republicans For One Month

[Gov Bean Counter]

And I'll do it again, right here, so people don't have to look for it. How in the dickens can you claim he knows the Constitution (all twelve articles of it he said he'd uphold) when there are only seven articles, ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and 27 Amendments total.

 It is a gaffe on the level of Obama's '57 states' gaffe, only we can see where Obama got 57 states (in the Caliphate).

The number 12 doesn't fit in the Constitution. I figure if y'all were knowledgeable about the Constitution on so much as a statistical level, that might have tripped a flag with you, too.

If Trump's potholes really knew the Constitution they wouldn't be supporting a candidate whose presidency would be the most extraconstitutional in American history.

And my comment about Cruz didn't deal with eligibility, it dealt with citizenship. Another dim witted pothole fail.

[Suppressed]

Sure RR got the ball rolling with a modest proposal to create a North American Union, but that is a far cry from what transpired.

True.  He advocated something much closer than NAFTA.  As he said, "It's time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners."

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Yes, members of both parties supported and opposed the bill.

That sounds like a text book definition of bi-partisan, do you disagree?

If you want to argue semantics you win.  Good Job little buddy.  However, by that same "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" argument gun control, cutting taxes, and abortion are also bi-partisan issues.  That is not logical.  Your definition would make almost every issue with the exception of Obamacare  bi-partisan.  I have already explained why your stretching the truth trying to make both parties equally supportive of free trade.  If you choose to stick with your guns on your deeply flawed and ignorant stance despite facts and figures, then we are at an impasse on this debate.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

RE: bold...that's exactly right.   They impugned Trump supporters' knowledge of the Constitution.

I would not do that.  I would respectfully admit that many, if not most of Trump's tens of millions of supporters are more knowledgeable of the Constitution, and care more deeply about our country then the 100+ million people who will choose not to vote for the President at all...and I count myself as one of the voters who will abstain this year.

Nobody likes to give up ground in a disagreement, but I would also admit that some of the people on my side of the debate are as embarrassing to me in their angry logic, desire to shout over the other side, and inability to find common ground, as much as I have embarrassed them during the heated exchanges on this forum over the last year. 

If you have the time, would you be interested in admitting that you find Trump's ignorance of the Constitution and the some of complex issues we face embarrassing?  I think you do from the conversations we have had, and I'm curious if you think Hitlery is equally ignorant of the Constitution or just wrong in her interpretation.  Also, if I am correct, how do you discount that disparity, and support the more ignorant Trump?

As always I ask because I hold you in high esteem, I value your opinion, and I keep open the possibility that through a dialogue with you I can learn and even understand a very confusing election.

[LMAO]

The point being isn't whether or not Trump and his backers understand nor don't have any knowledge of the Constitution. Isn't BHO supposed to be a Constitutional scholar?

My point was it appears too many of them simply view it as an obstacle to their turn to govern with  a pen and a phone

[roamer_1]

No. It was effective in splitting off the dumbassed voters.  Not a single court (and there were four) ruled in favor of those who challenged Cruz's eligibility.

Not to mention 50 states, who all independently determined his eligibility... many of which are deep, deep blue. Not a single one sought this purportedly easy means to put the most Conservative candidate out of the race.

No, his eligibility is bulletproof, and always has been.

[Longmire]

If you want to argue semantics you win. 

No, Obamacare was partisan legislation, NAFTA was not.

The NAFTA vote breakdown you provided shows the votes weren't cast strictly along party lines.

Free trade isn't a Republican value as much as it is an DC establishment value.

Fortunately the DC establishment no longer controls the agenda on trade, at least not if Trump wins.

[DCPatriot]

I would not do that.  I would respectfully admit that many, if not most of Trump's tens of millions of supporters are more knowledgeable of the Constitution, and care more deeply about our country then the 100+ million people who will choose not to vote for the President at all...and I count myself as one of the voters who will abstain this year.

Nobody likes to give up ground in a disagreement, but I would also admit that some of the people on my side of the debate are as embarrassing to me in their angry logic, desire to shout over the other side, and inability to find common ground, as much as I have embarrassed them during the heated exchanges on this forum over the last year. 

If you have the time, would you be interested in admitting that you find Trump's ignorance of the Constitution and the some of complex issues we face embarrassing?  I think you do from the conversations we have had, and I'm curious if you think Hitlery is equally ignorant of the Constitution or just wrong in her interpretation.  Also, if I am correct, how do you discount that disparity, and support the more ignorant Trump?

As always I ask because I hold you in high esteem, I value your opinion, and I keep open the possibility that through a dialogue with you I can learn and even understand a very confusing election.

No disagreement from me, sir!   He's seemingly "ignorant" about a lot of the way our checks and balances were intended to work as originally set-up.

The thing with me is, that as the old adage goes...It's not whether or not you know the answer so much as you know where to get it.

Don't forget....he has a phone, too!

He may say, "We need to do this NOW!"   But he'll have a lot of well-informed people in his circle-of-influence to guide him.

You know...like he has throughout his conglomerate of businesses. 

Right now, the Reality Show continues.  Come, November 9th...as President-Elect....hopefully he'll get down to seriousness.

That is, unless the DHS doesn't steal the election for Hillary.  That concerns me greatly...trying to tie his friendship with Putin as a motive to interfere with the votes.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

No disagreement from me, sir!   He's seemingly "ignorant" about a lot of the way our checks and balances were intended to work as originally set-up.

The thing with me is, that as the old adage goes...It's not whether or not you know the answer so much as you know where to get it.

Don't forget....he has a phone, too!

He may say, "We need to do this NOW!"   But he'll have a lot of well-informed people in his circle-of-influence to guide him.

You know...like he has throughout his conglomerate of businesses. 

Right now, the Reality Show continues.  Come, November 9th...as President-Elect....hopefully he'll get down to seriousness.

That is, unless the DHS doesn't steal the election for Hillary.  That concerns me greatly...trying to tie his friendship with Putin as a motive to interfere with the votes.

Logical and valid points.  Thank you for your thoughtful reply, my friend.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

No, Obamacare was partisan legislation, NAFTA was not.

The NAFTA vote breakdown you provided shows the votes weren't cast strictly along party lines.

Free trade isn't a Republican value as much as it is an DC establishment value.

Fortunately the DC establishment no longer controls the agenda on trade, at least not if Trump wins.

I would submit that some of the rat votes for NAFTA were due to President Clinton's arm twisting and some of the GOP opposition to NAFTA was due to the fact a rat President was pushing it.  I would also submit that when 2/3rds of GOP support free trade and 1/3rds of the rats support free trade calling the issue bi-partisan does not tell the whole story.  We disagree, but I'm happy with the case I made, you may have the last word.

[DCPatriot]

Logical and valid points.  Thank you for your thoughtful reply, my friend.

 

[HonestJohn]

No, Obamacare was partisan legislation, NAFTA was not.

The NAFTA vote breakdown you provided shows the votes weren't cast strictly along party lines.

Free trade isn't a Republican value as much as it is an DC establishment value.

Fortunately the DC establishment no longer controls the agenda on trade, at least not if Trump wins.

Your opinion, backed by nothing.

I'd say, based on the GOP electorial platforms from the 1950s onwards until today... that it is a Republican value.  That you are wrong.

[geronl]

Flake is an open borders apologist and a nasty sob.

Surprised to see so many "conservatives" here support him.

Trump is also a social and fiscal liberal.

Funny thing is, if Flake had supported Trump, he'd be loved by Trump supporters, lol.

[Longmire]

@HonestJohn The American people aren't fooled by the trade deal crap the corrupt DC establishment is pushing anymore.

One need look no further than the 2016 GOP platform to see how Republican views on free trade have evolved.

TPP is a dead letter in Congress thanks to bipartisan opposition.