The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: HAPPY2BME on October 11, 2016, 06:55:09 am
-
Fox News
Published on Oct 9, 2016
On 'Hannity,' LifeZette founder says Republicans have been waiting years for someone to lay a glove on the Clintons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbaHdDgxyaE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbaHdDgxyaE
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
-
On 'Hannity,' LifeZette founder says Republicans have been waiting years for someone to lay a glove on the Clintons
As long as your desire for revenge is stronger than your desire for righteousness, we will get stuck with losers like Donald Trump.
-
Great that so many could have that cathartic moment, but it came at a huge price. She's going to be elected and the democrats will control all branches of the government.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America. The only glove he laid on her was on her rotund bottom when he helped push up her standing. If you wanna effectively go after her for sex issues, it helps to not have a shipping container full of ones own.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
No, what we hate is that daily revelations about the not-so-distant past of a man of monumental unfitness for the office are going to destroy the candidacies of good people down-ticket.
Happy, would you condone a narcissistic ass like Trump making such moves on your daughter?
-
No, what we hate is that daily revelations about the not-so-distant past of a man of monumental unfitness for the office are going to destroy the candidacies of good people down-ticket.
Happy, would you condone a narcissistic ass like Trump making such moves on your daughter?
I would guess that if some random person put Happy against a wall, groped her and shoved his tongue down her throat, she would have a far different reaction than she has to Trump doing it to others. And it would certainly not be making excuses for and defending the sexual assaulter.
In fact, the same could be said for ANY female Trump supporter here or anywhere else. Likewise I would suspect that if any of the (theoretically) male Trump supporters saw their wife/family member so attacked, they would not be on TBR trashing anyone that called said sexual assault what it was.
Now if any Trump supporter cares to address the above and tell me it is IN ANY WAY incorrect, I would love to discuss why exactly that is. If they don't want to, I guess that speaks for itself.
Which would clearly show the flexible ethics of the Trump faithful at work.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
They way to take down Hillary was to defeat her not insult her. Trump wins a few insult battles but is losing the war overall. The result of supporting Trump is the opposite of your stated goal. Trump was her most favored opponent and you gave her that.
-
I would guess that if some random person put Happy against a wall, groped her and shoved his tongue down her throat, she would have a far different reaction than she has to Trump doing it to others. And it would certainly not be making excuses for and defending the sexual assaulter.
In fact, the same could be said for ANY female Trump supporter here or anywhere else. Likewise I would suspect that if any of the (theoretically) male Trump supporters saw their wife/family member so attacked, they would not be on TBR trashing anyone that called said sexual assault what it was.
Now if any Trump supporter cares to address the above and tell me it is IN ANY WAY incorrect, I would love to discuss why exactly that is. If they don't want to, I guess that speaks for itself.
Which would clearly show the flexible ethics of the Trump faithful at work.
I doubt any Trump supporter would be saying that it's okay if Hillary groped her (meow) and said how great it was that people allowed it because she's rich and powerful.
-
Trump was defending Bill and trashing his accusers just months before he ran, until he got that phone call.
“Linda Tripp may be one of the most unattractive human beings I’ve ever seen—not women, human beings. She’s just an unattractive person. This [Lucianne] Goldberg person, her agent or whatever she is, is just a terrible woman. You look at Paula Jones, I mean the whole cast of characters...It’s like it’s from Hell. It’s a terrible group of people.”-- Donald Trump
-
I doubt any Trump supporter would be saying that it's okay if Hillary groped her (meow) and said how great it was that people allowed it because she's rich and powerful.
Exactly my point. Situational ethics.And it's ALL coming from Camp Trump.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
Not true, but I have a hard time feeling proud that our next POTUS will be one of these two, someone our kids can look up to.
Either one.
Both.
-
I'm thinking both Ingraham and Hannity among others have been told by Trump there is a place for them at his new network as long as they continue to go along with the con and keep kissing his magnificent butt until after the election...
-
I'm thinking both Ingraham and Hannity among others have been told by Trump there is a place for them at his new network as long as they continue to go along with the con and keep kissing his magnificent butt until after the election...
They did the same thing with Romney. They just suplicate themselves to whatever liberal the GOP runs, then milk cash from dupes by talling them what conservatives they are.
Their history is there for all to see. 1: Bitch about candidate 2 Support candidate 3 Condemn anyone not doing as their told and forgetting 1 ever happened.
Every election. Same for Rush, Levin and all the rest. All right in the history of their actions.
-
Ingraham and Hannity are reasons why I know longer listen to talk radio as much.
-
1)The Clintons have alot to answer for
2) Trump is the worse spokesperson for this
-
1)The Clintons have alot to answer for
2) Trump is the worse spokesperson for this
3) A lot of Talk Radio shows can no longer complain about the Clinton's policies and their behavior if they defend a person like Trump.
-
3) A lot of Talk Radio shows can no longer complain about the Clinton's policies and their behavior if they defend a person like Trump.
True, the next one that says "character matters" is just making things up as they go along.
-
True, the next one that says "character matters" is just making things up as they go along.
Exactly... I think they have been.. Especially for the past 10 years. To be honest they prefer a Clinton White house.
-
Exactly... I think they have been.. Especially for the past 10 years. To be honest they prefer a Clinton White house.
I think it is better for their ratings to have an enemy, I agree.
-
I think it is better for their ratings to have an enemy, I agree.
Bingo
-
Donny laid his glove on Hitlary, but we also found out he laid his gloves on a whole host of women as well.......between their legs.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
And his little dog, Hannity, too!
-
I'm thinking both Ingraham and Hannity among others have been told by Trump there is a place for them at his new network as long as they continue to go along with the con and keep kissing his magnificent butt until after the election...
Mark Davis at KSKY The (Wrong) Answer must have received the same message. In his first ten minutes he stated there are only two types of conservatives at this moment:
1. Those who will fight for the country to keep Hillary from the White House.
2. Conservatives who are ok with a Hillary presidency.
Thankfully, I arrived at work shortly thereafter.
-
Mark Davis at KSKY The (Wrong) Answer must have received the same message. In his first ten minutes he stated there are only two types of conservatives at this moment:
1. Those who will fight for the country to keep Hillary from the White House.
2. Conservatives who are ok with a Hillary presidency.
Thankfully, I arrived at work shortly thereafter.
It's always entertaining when 'conservatives' that campaign on behalf of abortion profiteers, sexual abusers, gay advocates and big government liberals tell conservatives that actually maintain the principles of conservatism, what 'kind' of conservative they are.
Get them off the air and onto a neutral forum where it's not a one way conversation and lets see how long they hold up with their 'logic'.
-
Mark Davis at KSKY The (Wrong) Answer must have received the same message. In his first ten minutes he stated there are only two types of conservatives at this moment:
1. Those who will fight for the country to keep Hillary from the White House.
2. Conservatives who are ok with a Hillary presidency.
3. Those who recognize that Trumpism must be defeated to save the good name of conservatism.
-
"I've been waiting for this moment for MONTHS and it FINALLY HERE!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lutNECOZFw
-
Ingraham and Hannity are reasons why I know longer listen to talk radio as much.
@kevindavis
Back towards the end of the Republican Primary shitshow, I went to Wal*Mart and got me a bunch of $5-$7 "Greatest Hits" CDs... David Allen Coe, Marty Robins, Waylon Jennings, Merle Haggard, Hank Williams and Jerry Reed.
Other than when I was a kid, I was never really a country and western music kinda guy... but given the choice of listening to Hannity on the way home, or having the radio off, I'd pick the radio off and play a CD and get me some culture... instead of an aneurysm.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
It's more that Trump hates America. The only glove he laid on her was on her rotund bottom when he helped push up her standing. If you wanna effectively go after her for sex issues, it helps to not have a shipping container full of ones own.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
-
Ingraham is the consummate example of the hardcore Trump supporter. She's willing to throw the election and trash the conservative movement so that she can indulge her tantrum. She better enjoy "this moment", because from here on out it gets more painful.
And as for me, I won't be put on the defensive about my feelings for Trump. If I'm expected to feel anything but repulsion and disgust for a serial sexual abuser of women, then the person with the expectations should look into anti-psychotic medication.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
It is the tRumpkins, like yourself, who hate any one who does not kiss the large behind of the Great Orange tRumpkin Pumpkin. That is the only thing that makes this place, and other "conservative" sites full of haters. ****sheep****
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
@HAPPY2BME
Why are you still defending a man who admitted to sexual battery?
Do you think it's permissible to go around grabbing women's genitals?
Why do you think Trump deserves loyalty?
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
I do not hate Trump nor do I believe Trump hates America. Originally, my opposition to Trump was based on the fact is he will be economically and fiscally more similar to Hillary Clinton than traditional conservatism. I understand he is not a polished politician And that once in a while he's going to say something during the campaign that he will regret. But then it started to change into things like expanding libel laws to sue any publications that are critical of him , mocking a disabled reporter , and just the general way he has conducted himself through his campaign. These latest tapes that have come out about him,if they were isolated occurrences, would probably raise few eyebrows but they fit well in together with the way he is conducted his campaign thus far.
All of these are facts that are probably going to lead to his loss in November although I do think the election will be a lot closer than people believe
-
Maine Governor Paul LePaige thinks this kind of rant helps Trump:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CufOBfeXEAAHgJt.jpg)
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
Wow. The lies fall trippingly off your fingertips, don't they?
Please cite where anyone here came even close to saying they "hated" Schlafly or Graham??
It didn't happen.
You see, "happy," you who are into Trump worship with great passion, it is possible to disagree with someone (like Phyllis) and not "hate" her. As for Franklin, he hasn't endorsed Trump, so why would anyone hate him?
You just make things up in your fevered Trump brain, and don't give a rip if there's even a grain of truth in what you say.
But it's good to know that you support sexual predators.
That's important information to have about you moving forward. It's been revealing to find out who puts their political idol above morality and the respect for women.
I'm really surprised that anyone, even in anonymity, admits that they're fine with sexual assault and molestation.
But I'm not surprised that you're one of them.......
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
C'mon.
Seriously, you can't look at whats happening and not understand why many of us resent the way things have turned out.
That is to say the least.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
Yes it is. I don't gave a damn who did what 20 years ago or which fraud uses God as his personal piggy bank while endorsing abortion profiteers or sexual abusers.
If you don't like it here, thats not my problem.
-
Ingraham is the consummate example of the hardcore Trump supporter. She's willing to throw the election and trash the conservative movement so that she can indulge her tantrum. She better enjoy "this moment", because from here on out it gets more painful.
And as for me, I won't be put on the defensive about my feelings for Trump. If I'm expected to feel anything but repulsion and disgust for a serial sexual abuser of women, then the person with the expectations should look into anti-psychotic medication.
@CatherineofAragon
I think you've nailed a lot of hard-core Trump supporters exactly right. This did give them an opportunity to indulge their tantrums.
The problem is they forgot you have to win an election. And you have to at least start from the basis of nominating someone who is electable. For those of us NeverTrumpers, we dread the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency and fully understand what that's going to mean. But that doesn't mean you can put anybody out there to run against her and tell us you have to vote that person to keep her out
We are heading on a very dark path. Not just economically and fiscally but culturally as well. A member of this site had a great line and I tell other people it and I wish I knew who it was . The line is Hillary Clinton represents everything that's wrong with government . Donald Trump represents everything that's wrong with society. My only regret is I wish I came up with that line
And those of us who favor limited government ,fiscal responsibility, rugged individualism of people engaging in honest pursuit of self interest are going to face some tough times in the next several years. The path we are on in this country if it's allowed, to continue has a very horrible ending. It appears, and probably a lot of truth to it, that we pile up on Donald Trump more than we pile up on Hillary Clinton. Some of that is because we all know how badly corrupt and incompetent Hillary is. We just feel a sense of disappointment that we don't have any real choice to counter that this election cycle
Now that a Clinton presidency is all but imminent, The anxiety level of such a presidency is going to increase. And no question Trump supporters are going to feel a certain bitterness towards conservatives for not helping get their guy over the finish line and I guess I can understand that to a degree. But it's Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone that will be responsible
-
As long as your desire for revenge is stronger than your desire for righteousness, we will get stuck with losers like Donald Trump.
Well said!
This is why decisions made in anger and extreme emotion NEVER result in anything good.
Trump supporters threw away their values to support someone who would "get even."
And now the GOP is completely destroyed, Conservatism badly damaged, and Hillary is assured of getting into the WH.
And this is ALL the fault of the Trump lackeys who wanted revenge, not righteousness or truth.
-
Regarding Franklyn Graham. An article a few weeks ago showed the DT 'donated' $100,000 to Graham.
Nuff said.
-
Well said!
This is why decisions made in anger and extreme emotion NEVER result in anything good.
Trump supporters threw away their values to support someone who would "get even."
And now the GOP is completely destroyed, Conservatism badly damaged, and Hillary is assured of getting into the WH.
And this is ALL the fault of the Trump lackeys who wanted revenge, not righteousness or truth.
I share their anger, but the truth is the truth. They lost sight of it.
Whats remarkable to me is many of them knew better.
-
Well said!
And this is ALL the fault of the Trump lackeys who wanted revenge, not righteousness or truth.
Can't be said often enough.
-
Regarding Franklyn Graham. An article a few weeks ago showed the DT 'donated' $100,000 to Graham.
Nuff said.
Jerry Falwell Jr was on Hannity earlier in the year talking about a sizable unsolicited contribution to Liberty U from Donald Trump. I knew his endorsement would soon follow and sure enough it did.
I did not know about Graham. Thats disappointing.
-
@kevindavis
Back towards the end of the Republican Primary shitshow, I went to Wal*Mart and got me a bunch of $5-$7 "Greatest Hits" CDs... David Allen Coe, Marty Robins, Waylon Jennings, Merle Haggard, Hank Williams and Jerry Reed.
Other than when I was a kid, I was never really a country and western music kinda guy... but given the choice of listening to Hannity on the way home, or having the radio off, I'd pick the radio off and play a CD and get me some culture... instead of an aneurysm.
@rodamala
Ever since I cut down on Talk Radio, my outlook on life is much better. Also, I think my blood pressure has gone down.
-
As long as your desire for revenge is stronger than your desire for righteousness, we will get stuck with losers like Donald Trump.
Lately I think the larger problem is having to deal with people who need to "virtue signal" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=virtue%20signalling), and how they will strain at gnats and swallow camels.
-
Great that so many could have that cathartic moment, but it came at a huge price. She's going to be elected and the democrats will control all branches of the government.
Priorities are seriously messed up for people who are not opposing Hillary. They are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
God save us from idiots.
-
Lately I think
You hide it well.
-
@rodamala
Ever since I cut down on Talk Radio, my outlook on life is much better. Also, I think my blood pressure has gone down.
I include Fox News in that category. However, Fox Business in the morning is very good. I no longer watch Morning Joe...too predictable. I'll say this for Mika: she's showing her distaste of both Hillary and Trump, to varying degrees of course.
-
Fox News
Published on Oct 9, 2016
On 'Hannity,' LifeZette founder says Republicans have been waiting years for someone to lay a glove on the Clintons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbaHdDgxyaE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbaHdDgxyaE
Glove? What glove? Where???
These Trump idolaters are embarrassing themselves.....
and they're too stupid to realize it.
-
I'll say this for Mika: she's showing her distaste of both Hillary and Trump, to varying degrees of course.
Miki has grown up to be the boy a father could be proud of.
-
Priorities are seriously messed up for people who are not opposing Hillary. They are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
You want to oppose Hillary? Then for God's sake, demand that Trump step down in favor of Pence. It's the only chance we've got, and it's slipping away by the hour.
God save us from idiots.
I've been thinking that since Trump entered the race.
-
I'm just glad now that I know the going price for Pence's soul is the opportunity to be Vice-President.
-
You hide it well.
Prime example of the childish nonsense I keep seeing on this website.
Instead of "The Briefing Room" I'm beginning to believe a better title would be "The Romper Room."
-
I'm just glad now that I know the going price for Pence's soul is the opportunity to be Vice-President.
One could make the argument that Pence was looking to 2020.
Bad news, Mike: you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
-
Prime example of the childish nonsense I keep seeing on this website.
Instead of "The Briefing Room" I'm beginning to believe a better title would be "The Romper Room."
That post and those like it is exactly the reason for my comment. You don't think. You emote.
-
That post and those like it are exactly the reason for my comment. You don't think. You emote.
-
You want to oppose Hillary? Then for God's sake, demand that Trump step down in favor of Pence.
You are irrational. This statement demonstrates that you have not the slightest understanding of how politics actually works. This is baby talk. This is stamp your feet and throw a temper tantrum nonsense.
(http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screaming-Brat.jpg)
You would gain a few votes, but you would lose a hundred times the number.
It's the only chance we've got, and it's slipping away by the hour.
Unreal.
I've been thinking that since Trump entered the race.
Yes, since Trump entered the race, people have been straining at gnats and swallowing camels. He has certainly illuminated a tiny swath of Republican kooks, and not to mention a few backstabbers like Romney and Ryan.
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
-
That post and those like it is exactly the reason for my comment. You don't think. You emote.
I don't really think there is much point in responding to you. Have a nice day.
-
I don't really think there is much point in responding to you. Have a nice day.
More emoting.
-
@LMAO
@CatherineofAragon
I think you've nailed a lot of hard-core Trump supporters exactly right. This did give them an opportunity to indulge their tantrums. The problem is they forgot you have to win an election. And you have to at least start from the basis of nominating someone who is electable.
But here's the rub -- they did believe he is/was electable. In fact, most believe he was going to win in a landslide. And that happened because they were prisoners of the exact same self-delusion as are so many conservatives: the false (though infinitely comforting) belief that they really represent a "silent majority". That somehow, that great mass of people who don't vote in most election will just magically come out for "their guy", because all those non-voters have been waiting for all along is someone who sees things the way they do. It's such an easy thing to believe because it is impossible to prove false.
The hard-core Trump supporters, the third-party conservatives, the green-leaning leftists, the Perotistas...it's all the same. All operate under the delusion that there is a "silent majority" out there who will come out for their candidate if only the candidate remains pure and true to their beliefs.
-
@LMAO
But here's the rub -- they did believe he is/was electable. In fact, most believe he was going to win in a landslide. And that happened because they were prisoners of the exact same self-delusion as are so many conservatives: the false (though infinitely comforting) belief that they really represent a "silent majority". That somehow, that great mass of people who don't vote in most election will just magically come out for "their guy", because all those non-voters have been waiting for all along is someone who sees things the way they do. It's such an easy thing to believe because it is impossible to prove false.
The hard-core Trump supporters, the third-party conservatives, the green-leaning leftists, the Perotistas...it's all the same. All operate under the delusion that there is a "silent majority" out there who will come out for their candidate if only the candidate remains pure and true to their beliefs.
Yep..well said
-
@LMAO
But here's the rub -- they did believe he is/was electable. In fact, most believe he was going to win in a landslide. And that happened because they were prisoners of the exact same self-delusion as are so many conservatives: the false (though infinitely comforting) belief that they really represent a "silent majority". That somehow, that great mass of people who don't vote in most election will just magically come out for "their guy", because all those non-voters have been waiting for all along is someone who sees things the way they do. It's such an easy thing to believe because it is impossible to prove false.
The hard-core Trump supporters, the third-party conservatives, the green-leaning leftists, the Perotistas...it's all the same. All operate under the delusion that there is a "silent majority" out there who will come out for their candidate if only the candidate remains pure and true to their beliefs.
==============================
Christians comprise 20% of the voting block.
This latest neocon attack on Trump is designed to MAKE THEM STAY HOME.
How simple can it get?
-
But here's the rub -- they did believe he is/was electable. In fact, most believe he was going to win in a landslide. And that happened because they were prisoners of the exact same self-delusion as are so many conservatives: the false (though infinitely comforting) belief that they really represent a "silent majority". That somehow, that great mass of people who don't vote in most election will just magically come out for "their guy", because all those non-voters have been waiting for all along is someone who sees things the way they do. It's such an easy thing to believe because it is impossible to prove false.
The hard-core Trump supporters, the third-party conservatives, the green-leaning leftists, the Perotistas...it's all the same. All operate under the delusion that there is a "silent majority" out there who will come out for their candidate if only the candidate remains pure and true to their beliefs.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I don't know that even if we nominated a solid conservative candidate that the candidate would have won. Regardless who won the primary, they would have an uphill battle. With a deteriorating culture, with more and more people at the government trough, and demographics, I am and was then fully aware what we, as conservatives, are up against. You are absolutely correct that people tend to think the rest of the country sees things through their own eyes. And, if you do that, you don't think you have to teach as everyone agrees with you so there's no need to. The reality is, conservatives are in for a long, tough haul. But, I believe conservative values and political positions are the superior ones and I plan on fighting for them
We can't say for sure what the election results would be if a Cruz or Rubio was running. And I believe both are electable. But it doesn't mean I think they were shoe ins. But it's clear, at least for the moment, what the results will be with Trump running.
BTW, I enjoy your posts. Very reasoned and matter of fact.
-
Prime example of the childish nonsense I keep seeing on this website.
Instead of "The Briefing Room" I'm beginning to believe a better title would be "The Romper Room."
Hey....you're free to leave....any time, DL. In fact....I'm starting to think that you enjoy it here. Why else would you still be around....this being such a negative place in your "mind" and all.
-
Prime example of the childish nonsense I keep seeing on this website.
Instead of "The Briefing Room" I'm beginning to believe a better title would be "The Romper Room."
No, the Romper Room is the "safe space" that you Trumpers have.
This is the adult forum where adults disagree in an adult manner........... unless of course they just peek out of the safe space for Trumpers to take pot shots at the grown ups, and then go back to hide.
IOW, you have it backwards.
No surprise there.
-
You are irrational. This statement demonstrates that you have not the slightest understanding of how politics actually works. This is baby talk. This is stamp your feet and throw a temper tantrum nonsense.
(http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screaming-Brat.jpg)
You would gain a few votes, but you would lose a hundred times the number.
Unreal.
Yes, since Trump entered the race, people have been straining at gnats and swallowing camels. He has certainly illuminated a tiny swath of Republican kooks, and not to mention a few backstabbers like Romney and Ryan.
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
Oh....and just so ya know.....
that "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" line you use so often is getting a bit moldy and tired. If you do deign to stick around and grace us with your 'oh so mature' presence.... you might want to come up with some other asinine line to spiel ad nauseam. Just sayin....
-
Ever since I cut down on Talk Radio, my outlook on life is much better. Also, I think my blood pressure has gone down.
Yup. Amen.
Turned Rush off for good, canceled my 24/7 - and I even turned off Levin for the duration.
I get my political fix right here - and this is far healthier and more informative.
Am feeling much better.
-
Jerry Falwell Jr was on Hannity earlier in the year talking about a sizable unsolicited contribution to Liberty U from Donald Trump. I knew his endorsement would soon follow and sure enough it did.
I did not know about Graham. Thats disappointing.
But Graham has not endorsed Trump.
My husband attended a prayer rally Franklin had in Columbus last week, and he most definitely did NOT endorse Trump.
I think that Trump donated in order to bribe him, but it didn't succeed.
Billy and his family are above reproach when it comes to finances. Billy made sure that was so at least 60 years ago.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I don't know that even if we nominated a solid conservative candidate that the candidate would have won. Regardless who won the primary, they would have an uphill battle. With a deteriorating culture, with more and more people at the government trough, and demographics, I am and was then fully aware what we, as conservatives, are up against. You are absolutely correct that people tend to think the rest of the country sees things through their own eyes. And, if you do that, you don't think you have to teach as everyone agrees with you so there's no need to. The reality is, conservatives are in for a long, tough haul.
My "hope" is based on the belief that there is a critical mass of voters who generally can be persuaded to vote for the candidate who is the most charismatic/likeable, as long as their views aren't too extreme. So, a strong conservative is never going to win the nomination and general election simply because they are a good, strong conservative. They're going to need to be conservative and have that extra personality/charisma that can swing a lot of low-information voters. That's a tough combination to find, but it is possible to do that.
It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that everyone else is like us political junkies, and votes solely on the issues. That's just not the case. And while I wish that conservatism really was the majority philosophy so we could win elections that way, I'll take a win any way I can get it. And that means conservatives who appeal to more than just conservatives.
BTW, I enjoy your posts. Very reasoned and matter of fact.
Much appreciated. I enjoy yours as well.
-
Oh....and just so ya know.....
that "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" line you use so often is getting a bit moldy and tired. If you do deign to stick around and grace us with your 'oh so mature' presence.... you might want to come up with some other asinine line to spiel ad nauseam. Just sayin....
Ironic, isn't it, that the guy here complaining that America is not "mature enough" is a cheerleader for the most childish politician to ever live.
I know many, MANY 8 year olds more mature than Donald Trump.
And DioLamp thinks that it's the grown ups who support him. :silly:
You can't make this stuff up.....
-
==============================
Christians comprise 20% of the voting block.
This latest neocon attack on Trump is designed to MAKE THEM STAY HOME.
How simple can it get?
So what?
You and your Prince stated repeatedly you did not need, nor want the support of Principled Conservative Christians that did not like Trump back when.
So they will stay home.
What's the problem?
-
Oh....and just so ya know.....
that "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" line you use so often is getting a bit moldy and tired. If you do deign to stick around and grace us with your 'oh so mature' presence.... you might want to come up with some other asinine line to spiel ad nauseam. Just sayin....
Isn't it interesting how Trump cheerleaders appear on this forum and fail in defending their childish hero because there are so many adults who rationally oppose their pablum, and as soon as they realize they can't beat logic with their emotional outbursts, they start blaming the forum for the failure of their arguments.
Fascinating to observe......
-
==============================
Christians comprise 20% of the voting block.
This latest neocon attack on Trump is designed to MAKE THEM STAY HOME.
How simple can it get?
Self-described Christians are not a monolithic voting block, especially given that it includes a lot of African-Americans. So they weren't voting for him anyway. I think this was largely targeted at the soccer mom vote -- married women. And it will probably be effective.
But that doesn't change the point that a lot of Trump supporters -- warned specifically during the primaries that Trump was an unvetted unknown who could have damaging stuff leak during the general election -- nevertheless were confident he'd win in a landslide because of that "silent majority". That silent majority does not exist. The "silent majority" is silent generally because they don't care very much about politics, aren't interested, don't take the time, etc., and their underlying political tendencies -- to the extent they have any at all -- are all over the map in terms of ideology. So they aren't a majority of anything.
With rare exceptions, those of us who actually care vote already.
-
==============================
Christians comprise 20% of the voting block.
This latest neocon attack on Trump is designed to MAKE THEM STAY HOME.
How simple can it get?
So Donald Trump's own video admission that he is a sexual predator is now the Jews' fault??
You're amazing, Happy. Just amazing...... **nononono*
-
Yup. Amen.
Turned Rush off for good, canceled my 24/7 - and I even turned off Levin for the duration.
I get my political fix right here - and this is far healthier and more informative.
Am feeling much better.
Better class of peoples here too.
-
As long as your desire for revenge is stronger than your desire for righteousness, we will get stuck with losers like Donald Trump.
The profundity of the truth of your observation literally took my breath and brought tears to my eyes. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for that wisdom.
@Hoodat
-
Self-described Christians are not a monolithic voting block, especially given that it includes a lot of African-Americans. So they weren't voting for him anyway. I think this was largely targeted at the soccer mom vote -- married women. And it will probably be effective.
But that doesn't change the point that a lot of Trump supporters -- warned specifically during the primaries that Trump was an unvetted unknown who could have damaging stuff leak during the general election -- nevertheless were confident he'd win in a landslide because of that "silent majority". That silent majority does not exist. The "silent majority" is silent generally because they don't care very much about politics, aren't interested, don't take the time, etc., and their underlying political tendencies -- to the extent they have any at all -- are all over the map in terms of ideology. So they aren't a majority of anything.
With rare exceptions, those of us who actually care vote already.
I think your "Silent Majority" theory is completely off base. I think the vast majority of us who keep up with politics are completely aware that *MOST* of the public does not give a rat's @$$ about ideology or political agendas, they just generally go with the "Popular" candidate.
Add into this the media jiggering to portray someone as the "Popular" candidate, and you have a rough model of what we are dealing with.
Most Trump supporters who I have spoken with are not thinking there is this great conservative majority out there, they are of the opinion that most of the public are casual voters who vote for what "feels" good. What they saw in Trump is someone who will fight. Someone who will not roll over for opposition or media (same thing) attacks, but who will instead "Punch Back".
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) sums up the phenomena by noting "We tried "Nice" with Romney." Now we are trying something else. If that does not work, we will try something further. "
Yes, there was a lot of irrational support for the New York Liberal Democrat who recently became a Republican , but they wanted him because he strikes them as a no bullsh*t fighter who won't back down, and after decades of pathetic cuckold conservatives, people were desperate to get a fighter.
The wishful thinking of a "Silent Majority" never entered into it.
-
Hey....you're free to leave....any time, DL.
I leave often. I keep coming back hoping that some sanity awoke. Alas, I see the same small cadre of people circle jerking each other about how bad is the only candidate we are going to get to stop Leviathan Super State Hillary from going deeper into Socialist-Stasi Nirvana.
In fact....I'm starting to think that you enjoy it here. Why else would you still be around....this being such a negative place in your "mind" and all.
Because I am an unredeemable contrarian. Sometimes I like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
I also have great hopes in the human ability to reason.... when it gets used.
-
The biggest tragedy in all of this is folks, who pre Trump would have been "Brothers and Sisters in arms" in the world of conservative ideology, are now divided, possibly for a long time.
We were once united in not only in our disgust for the creeping liberalism infecting this nation. But in our dismay at the GOP for going along with it :shrug:
I don't blame Trump supporters for Donald Trump. I blame the GOP. The same GOP who now are acting like Sgt Shultz from Hogan's Heroes
-
==============================
Christians comprise 20% of the voting block.
This latest neocon attack on Trump is designed to MAKE THEM STAY HOME.
How simple can it get?
They are playing chess while some people on our side are playing tic tac toe.
They literally have no understanding of the political demographic makeup of this nation, and what is necessary to get a coalition that can beat Democrats.
-
As to the gloves landed on Hillary by Trump, they remind me of a general named Pyrrhus. At the moment the blows are landed, Trump's supporters holler and hoop, "he's winning."
The rest of the country looks on and asks, "what's this got to do with getting the country back on track? How is this going to improve the economy?"
In the end, these "victories" are gained at too large a cost.
-
I think your "Silent Majority" theory is completely off base. I think the vast majority of us who keep up with politics are completely aware that *MOST* of the public does not give a rat's @$$ about ideology or political agendas, they just generally go with the "Popular" candidate.
Perhaps the "vast majority" does. But there is a pretty vocal minority here that does not. I've been debating this with them in other threads, where they keep arguing that such a majority actually does exist, and is just waiting for a true-blue, hardline conservative to awaken them.
Most Trump supporters who I have spoken with are not thinking there is this great conservative majority out there, they are of the opinion that most of the public are casual voters who vote for what "feels" good. What they saw in Trump is someone who will fight. Someone who will not roll over for opposition or media (same thing) attacks, but who will instead "Punch Back".
But then they did believe in some secret majority -- it just wasn't a true believer conservative majority. They believed that there was a majority out there who will vote for someone "who fights", who will not "roll over for opposition or media) and "who will instead punch back." But of course, that is just projecting their emotions onto other voters, and assuming that other people would share their ideas about political correctness, and the leftist bias of the media, etc.. They thought that would be a bigger constituency than it turned out to be. I wouldn't say that all those who supported Trump in the primaries fell into that category. Some may have used a similar calculus as you ascribed to Glenn Reynolds. But there were also a whole lot of them convinced he represented a great "them", and that he'd win in a landslide.
it's the same error -- just with a different focus.
-
It is December of 2014.Democrats have suffered major losses in congressional races. Republicans are ascendant and eagerly looking forward to 2016, when they will have a bumper crop of young, talented and experienced candidates to offer the voters, who are decidedly weary of Obamacare, economic stagnation, international weakness and divisive politics.
A group of veteran Democrat strategists has gathered in D.C., in a small office on Massachusetts Avenue N.W., to discuss their party's future, and how the election of 2016 might yet be salvaged. Hillary Clinton is the presumed frontrunner for the nomination, but she is known to be a poor campaigner and personally disagreeable to a significant share of the electorate. And also, to a number of Democrats in that very room.
The discussion is lively, occasionally heated, and centers around how best to offset two significant advantages that the GOP possesses going into 2016: an enthusiastic and motivated voter base, and an growing and influential network of alternative media support via talk radio, conservative internet news sources, and social media.
The participants review each of the potential Republican standard bearers, focusing on their strengths and weaknesses: John Kasich has moderate appeal and being from the key state of Ohio might also be able to capture Pennsylvania; Scott Walker is seen as a somewhat plodding, if steady governor with a populist vibe born of having stood up to his state's public employees' unions and their Democratic legislative benefactors. He could conceivably improve the GOP's prospects in the upper Midwest. Then, there is Marco Rubio: young, attractive, energetic, Hispanic, and he hails from the wildly vital state of Florida. Big Time Trouble.
They drink coffee from recycled brown paper cups and bottled water both in copious quantities. As the late afternoon sunlight slants through the too-brightly lit office room, the Democrat operatives review and discuss the yellow opposition research folders spread out on the table, fifteen or sixteen in all. An unusual wealth of talent right there, the operatives agree. Unusual for Republicans. But there will certainly be some opportunities ripe for exploitation, to be sure...
Ted Cruz... not a team player, to say the least; he's a bomb thrower. Besides, Boehner can't stand him. Hates his guts. Smart bastard, though. And Jeb Bush... oh, man -can you imagine it? What a friggin' gift it would be to have the Bush Family name to kick around again and to remind people about the last one. Then there's Mike Huckabee, the Holy Huckster, and Chris Christie... really?? Yeah, sure, I got a bridge for ya, right here pal.... (snort!).
And then, the slightly-built bespectacled man with the starched white dress shirt and dark blue tie at the end of the table spoke up. "What about Trump?"
"Donald Trump? That maniac? Are you serious? What about him?"
"He's running for President. As a Republican".
"Where the hell did you hear that?"
The thin grey-haired man smiled beneath his horn-rimmed glasses.
"He told me himself".
-
The profundity of the truth of your observation literally took my breath and brought tears to my eyes. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for that wisdom.
@Hoodat
I completely agree.
-
The biggest tragedy in all of this is folks, who pre Trump would have been "Brothers and Sisters in arms" in the world of conservative ideology, are now divided, possibly for a long time.
I am beginning to regard the constant efforts to torpedo the only candidate we will have as betrayal. I feel that if Hillary wins it will be in part because of the constant carping of people who have no better solution. It is engendering an animosity that is getting harder to resist.
We are in a war, and a small cadre of dissidents keeps trying to undermine our only chance at victory; Our only chance at averting a very horrible outcome. It will be difficult to forgive if they are ultimately successful at wrecking our only hope.
We were once united in not only in our disgust for the creeping liberalism infecting this nation. But in our dismay at the GOP for going along with it :shrug:
I don't blame Trump supporters for Donald Trump. I blame the GOP. The same GOP who now are acting like Sgt Shultz from Hogan's Heroes
I do too, starting with George Herbert Walker Bush who started this trainwreck by breaking his promise. That was a pivotal point in history. That is a point which guaranteed a Future Clinton presidency, and thereby created the conditions that caused this current Obama Presidency.
Subsequently, other members of the Republican party showed themselves to be pansies and cowards.
McCain didn't fight. Romney didn't fight. Boehner didn't fight. McConnell didn't fight. Out of the Entire Senate, only a few Senators were willing to put up a fight. (Ted Cruz being prominent among them.)
We have men without chests. They created the desperate desire on the part of primary voters to find someone who had one.
-
I leave often. I keep coming back hoping that some sanity awoke. Alas, I see the same small cadre of people circle jerking each other about how bad is the only candidate we are going to get to stop Leviathan Super State Hillary from going deeper into Socialist-Stasi Nirvana.
You're a little late at the gate there, DL.
Sanity would have been when the GOP did NOT allow the Democrats to pick and choose Donald J. Trump as the GOP nominee. It's all downhill from here...just as it was in 2008 when they picked McCain, and just as it was in 2012 when they picked Romney. Sanity would have been picking an actual conservative that more closely represents the values of MOST non-leftist Americans.
The only difference this election year is....since 2014, when we naïve Republican-supporters put them in control of both houses of Congress.....the GOP has proceeded to crap ALL OVER those of us that put them in the majority control....to the point of pushing out any true or real conservatives from the party.
So....no sanity to be found this year. And I'm about to give up hope for that "maybe in another four years" bullchit. That is, after all, the very definition of insanity....to keep doing the same thing (voting for the GOP) and hoping for or expecting a different result.
This year is a first for me. I'm voting 3rd Party. And I won't be alone re: that.
Because I am an unredeemable contrarian. Sometimes I like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
I can be that too.....but you will NEVER catch me arguing 'for' the rabid leftists and/or for Hillary Clinton. I may argue on various minutia re: conservative stances, however. And my perception is that anyone supporting Trump is either knowingly (Trumpocrats that crossed over to vote for Trump) or unknowingly (LIV voters) supporting the election of Hillary Clinton. Which are you?
I also have great hopes in the human ability to reason.... when it gets used.
Eh....with all due respect.....considering some of your posts here (like the one where you basically called all anti-Trump folks children or juvenile).... your ability is sadly lacking. JS...
-
The biggest tragedy in all of this is folks, who pre Trump would have been "Brothers and Sisters in arms" in the world of conservative ideology, are now divided, possibly for a long time.
That's true, but for the most part, I don't think it will matter. I mean, we don't have to like each other. We just have to end up voting for the right candidates in the end. The only real potential I see for true, long-lasting damage is:
1) If enough conservatives are sufficiently disillusioned by the GOP to support a 3rd party. Because if that happens, we won't be voting for the same candidates. And that's a problem, because the minority of the electorate that is conservative will be splitting it's already too small share of votes.
2) If some Trump supporters who generally voted GOP are sufficiently angered that they sit out future elections. I think those kind of, uh, temper tantrums are much more common in the threat stage than are actually carried through. For the most part, when elections roll around, people will cast votes based on whether or not they like the particular candidate, not on what happened 4 years previously.
I personally believe that for all the teeth-gnashing and tearing of hair in this election, the vast majority of conservatives will still end up following the GOP primary in 2020, and voting in that primary for the most conservative candidate they believe can win. There will be some very vocal exceptions to that, but I think that most of us are going to end up on the same side by default after 6 months of Hillary.
-
You are irrational. This statement demonstrates that you have not the slightest understanding of how politics actually works. This is baby talk. This is stamp your feet and throw a temper tantrum nonsense.
(http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screaming-Brat.jpg)
You would gain a few votes, but you would lose a hundred times the number.
Unreal.
Yes, since Trump entered the race, people have been straining at gnats and swallowing camels. He has certainly illuminated a tiny swath of Republican kooks, and not to mention a few backstabbers like Romney and Ryan.
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
Your world has changed in the last 72 hours. Since the Billy Bush tape, Trump's candidacy is unsustainable - THAT, my foolish friend, is how politics works. Either he steps down or he's crushed like a gnat, and his message buried with him.
You seek revenge and martyrdom, but I seek an antidote to Hillary Clinton. Let it be Pence. Let Trump step down, and urge all who favor his message to back Pence.
Unreal? Perhaps - but only because of the immaturity of the man you support. The world's ending for Trump, he and his supporters just don't realize it yet. But there's still a puncher's chance, if he'll do the right thing and step down THIS WEEK.
-
Yup. Amen.
Turned Rush off for good, canceled my 24/7 - and I even turned off Levin for the duration.
I get my political fix right here - and this is far healthier and more informative.
Am feeling much better.
@INVAR
Talk Radio started out as a good thing.. Then I would say around 05-06 it started to turn into a whine fest.. Then with this election, the fact they support a guy like Trump (who has the same character values as Bill Clinton) told me a lot about them. They don't want the GOP to win.
-
But then they did believe in some secret majority -- it just wasn't a true believer conservative majority. They believed that there was a majority out there who will vote for someone "who fights", who will not "roll over for opposition or media) and "who will instead punch back." But of course, that is just projecting their emotions onto other voters, and assuming that other people would share their ideas about political correctness, and the leftist bias of the media, etc.. They thought that would be a bigger constituency than it turned out to be. I wouldn't say that all those who supported Trump in the primaries fell into that category. Some may have used a similar calculus as you ascribed to Glenn Reynolds. But there were also a whole lot of them convinced he represented a great "them", and that he'd win in a landslide.
it's the same error -- just with a different focus.
They figured he would be able to overcome the ~10% margin which the biased media always gives to the Democrat. If anyone knew how to "bell" the Media Cat, it would have to be Trump. He knows them personally. He has scads of experience at dealing with media. They figured he would be the most media savy candidate out there, and he would thereby be able to create a majority that wouldn't exist for other candidates.
Some of the evidence indicates that this is indeed working. I've seen various reports claiming that 25% of the black vote is going for Trump. I know several black people who are big Trump supporters, and this indeed is a phenomenal effect that I have seen from no other Republican candidate.
Look, you and I both know that about 40% of the nation is Staunch Republican and about 40% of the nation is Staunch Democrat, and elections get decided by that middle 20% who aren't really ideological, but are often persuadable by whatever happens to be the current fad that occurs when they start thinking about the election. (Generally just a few weeks before it happens.)
The media generally steers that middle 20% pretty hard, and the hope was that Trump could overcome this, but not only has he been having to fight the media, he's also been having to fight the backstabbers in the party.
This is something that the Democrats seldom have to deal with. As a matter of fact, the term "yellow dog Democrat" comes from the sentiment that they will vote Democrat even if their candidate is a "dirty yellow dog."
This is one reason among many why they win more often than we. They simply do not allow scandals to derail their candidates.
-
Your world has changed in the last 72 hours. Since the Billy Bush tape, Trump's candidacy is unsustainable - THAT's how politics works. Either he steps down or he's crushed like a gnat, and his message buried with him. You seek martyrdom, but I seek an antidote to Hillary Clinton. Let it be Pence. Let Trump step down, and urge all who favor his message to back Pence.
Unreal? Perhaps - but only because of the immaturity of the man you support. The world's ending for Trump, he and his supporters just don't realize it yet. But there's still a puncher's chance, if he'll do the right thing and step down THIS WEEK.
It's very telling, isn't it. That the Trump supporters 'claim' that they mostly support Trump in order to defeat Hillary. It's their main reason/excuse. But, considering the latest revelations of Trump's past bad behavior....his unfavorable ratings have skyrocketed, making his election even less possible or probable. Yet... even when the chance of defeating Hillary is presented by keeping Pence and dropping Trump from the ticket....they balk and squeal. I thought the whole point with them was to keep Hillary OUT of the WH. Maybe it wasn't....after all. :shrug:
-
Ironic, isn't it, that the guy here complaining that America is not "mature enough" is a cheerleader for the most childish politician to ever live.
I know many, MANY 8 year olds more mature than Donald Trump.
And DioLamp thinks that it's the grown ups who support him. :silly:
You can't make this stuff up.....
Here's the logic. If they (Trump supporters here) really wanted to keep Hillary out of the White House....they would be willing to drop Trump from the ticket and go with Pence. I would vote for Pence as president in a heartbeat. As would many others. But for "some" reason, the Trump supporters are vehemently against that solution. You have to ask yourself 'why' that is. (I already know)
-
You're a little late at the gate there, DL.
Sanity would have been when the GOP did NOT allow the Democrats to pick and choose Donald J. Trump as the GOP nominee.
You are stuck in the past XenaLee. I did not agree with the decision of the primary voters, but I face up to the fact that they MADE the decision.
-
As a matter of fact, the term "yellow dog Democrat" comes from the sentiment that they will vote Democrat even if their candidate is a "dirty yellow dog."
This is one reason among many why they win more often than we. They simply do not allow scandals to derail their candidates.
So you're saying that the Dems have no morals or scruples, and we should emulate that?
That's insane - especially with the MSM against us. Our scandals stick because the MSM sees to that. That may not be fair, but that's reality. A man caught on tape reveling that his wealth and fame permits him to sexually assault women is not going to survive politically. Trump and Trumpism is dead unless Trump shows he's a bigger man than we'd thought possible - by stepping down.
-
You are stuck in the past XenaLee. I did not agree with the decision of the primary voters, but I face up to the fact that they MADE the decision.
But the facts have changed. Trump's candidacy is unsustainable. He's got to go.
-
I am beginning to regard the constant efforts to torpedo the only candidate we will have as betrayal. I feel that if Hillary wins it will be in part because of the constant carping of people who have no better solution. It is engendering an animosity that is getting harder to resist.
And were does Trump's responsibility in the torpedoing of his own campaign start? With all this mess of the Trump campaign, we arent even getting a campaign of limiting the size and scope of the Federal government out of this deal
I share your frustration with the names you listed and what the GOP has become. We all do. The division is over whether Trump is the antidote.
My personal feelings is it isn't going to be an election that fixes these problems. Let someone start making the cuts we need and there will be howling and protests. Sadly, we may be drifting towards a dictatorship in the future. A benevolent one. But a dictatorship, nonetheless.
-
Perhaps the "vast majority" does. But there is a pretty vocal minority here that does not. I've been debating this with them in other threads, where they keep arguing that such a majority actually does exist, and is just waiting for a true-blue, hardline conservative to awaken them.
I'm actually in agreement with the Major on this point. I no longer think there is this 'silent' Conservative Christian majority in the country waiting for a Conservative to come riding in to save us.
The state of our debased culture is an indictment the 'Silent Majority's' failure and perhaps an indicator of their own compromised foundations.
Liberty cannot exist in this environment of selfish ignorance, and we are just discovering that truth, despite the warnings from the Founders of that exact thing.
-
It's very telling, isn't it. That the Trump supporters 'claim' that they mostly support Trump in order to defeat Hillary. It's their main reason/excuse. But, considering the latest revelations of Trump's past bad behavior....his unfavorable ratings have skyrocketed, making his election even less possible or probable. Yet... even when the chance of defeating Hillary is presented by keeping Pence and dropping Trump from the ticket....they balk and squeal. I thought the whole point with them was to keep Hillary OUT of the WH. Maybe it wasn't....after all. :shrug:
I have said all along that they want liberalism. thay don't care which liberal gets in. To do that, they have gone far out of the bounds of any prior campaign to destroy not only conservatives running but places where conservatives gather, places that broadcast/print conservative philosophy and ideas and conservative supporters of those conservative candidates.
That is a hallmark of Democrat/liberal politics as shown by Emanuel, Axlerod, Podesta, Blumenthall, Schmitt, Wallace, Stone...and a certain determined group of posters here with an agenda that like to also hang out at FR.
Gee. What are the odds I wonder?
-
Funny how Laura parrots Hopeychangey so well.
(http://static.europosters.cz/image/1300/plagaty/barack-obama-this-is-our-moment-i4648.jpg)
-
That's insane - especially with the MSM against us. Our scandals stick because the MSM sees to that. That may not be fair, but that's reality.
This is key.
Even if WikiLeaks revealed something horribly damaging to Clinton at this point in the race, the damage done to her would be how willing the press would be to make it news
-
I personally believe that for all the teeth-gnashing and tearing of hair in this election, the vast majority of conservatives will still end up following the GOP primary in 2020, and voting in that primary for the most conservative candidate they believe can win. There will be some very vocal exceptions to that, but I think that most of us are going to end up on the same side by default after 6 months of Hillary.
I still *HATE* Ross Perot voters. I am aware that George HW Bush did the majority of damage to himself, but the people so stupid as to vote for H Ross Perot, handed the election to Clinton.
Clinton was an utter disaster. People still do not realize what a horrible President he was. I couldn't stand George HW Bush, but I knew what sort of utter scum Bill Clinton would be, and he did not disappoint.
And Hillary is Worse. She is the true ideologue in that relationship. I think Bill Clinton would have happily pretended to be a conservative if he thought that would have worked. (This is what he actually did do as Governor of Arkansas. )
-
It's very telling, isn't it. That the Trump supporters 'claim' that they mostly support Trump in order to defeat Hillary. It's their main reason/excuse. But, considering the latest revelations of Trump's past bad behavior....his unfavorable ratings have skyrocketed, making his election even less possible or probable. Yet... even when the chance of defeating Hillary is presented by keeping Pence and dropping Trump from the ticket....they balk and squeal. I thought the whole point with them was to keep Hillary OUT of the WH. Maybe it wasn't....after all. :shrug:
I don't know how much more clear we could've made it during the primaries - out of the dozen or so candidates Trump was probably WORST equipped to keep Hillary out of the White House. There're none so blind...
-
The media generally steers that middle 20% pretty hard, and the hope was that Trump could overcome this, but not only has he been having to fight the media, he's also been having to fight the backstabbers in the party. This is something that the Democrats seldom have to deal with. As a matter of fact, the term "yellow dog Democrat" comes from the sentiment that they will vote Democrat even if their candidate is a "dirty yellow dog."
This is one reason among many why they win more often than we. They simply do not allow scandals to derail their candidates.
I agree with all of that. I recall very specifically how Geraldo Rivera was so eagerly defending Bill Clinton when the first of the bimbo eruptions happened, and he was arguing vociferously that it shouldn't matter, it was his private sex life, etc.. Then someone on whatever show asked him what would be happening if Clinton were a Republican. He looked startled for a second as he considered it, then said "he'd have been forced out of the race already and long gone." The media/cultural bias is incredibly strong. I think it's even worse now with social media and it's impact on the young, who are the first to hop on new trends, etc..
And I'm with you on Trump -- By March, what Trump said in 2005 will be completely irrelevant to what is happening in the country. Give me a choice between a Supreme Court Justice and Trump admitting to what 80% of these other pols likely say anyway, and it should be a no brainer.
But what has happened is that those who already opposed Trump have latched onto this as yet another reason to pile on. Personally, I'd say that anyone who made up their mind based on this stupid story should be ashamed of themselves. If the Supreme Court, immigration, etc., were important enough reasons before to back this flawed candidate, that shouldn't have changed.
-
I don't know how much more clear we could've made it during the primaries - out of the dozen or so candidates Trump was probably WORST equipped to keep Hillary out of the White House. There're none so blind...
Is it really a case of being blind....
or is it a hidden agenda?
-
You're a little late at the gate there, DL.
Sanity would have been when the GOP did NOT allow the Democrats to pick and choose Donald J. Trump as the GOP nominee. It's all downhill from here...just as it was in 2008 when they picked McCain, and just as it was in 2012 when they picked Romney. Sanity would have been picking an actual conservative that more closely represents the values of MOST non-leftist Americans.
On the issues important to republican voters, on the issues as President has some control over, Donald Trump was the most conservative candidate running, which is why he won. You NeverTrumpers are going to be very unpopular to all but Hillary voters if Trump loses. Just go look on Paul Ryans Facebook page to see what is coming your way.
@DiogenesLamp @XenaLee
-
You're a little late at the gate there, DL.
Sanity would have been when the GOP did NOT allow the Democrats to pick and choose Donald J. Trump as the GOP nominee. It's all downhill from here...just as it was in 2008 when they picked McCain, and just as it was in 2012 when they picked Romney. Sanity would have been picking an actual conservative that more closely represents the values of MOST non-leftist Americans.
The only difference this election year is....since 2014, when we naïve Republican-supporters put them in control of both houses of Congress.....the GOP has proceeded to crap ALL OVER those of us that put them in the majority control....to the point of pushing out any true or real conservatives from the party.
So....no sanity to be found this year. And I'm about to give up hope for that "maybe in another four years" bullchit. That is, after all, the very definition of insanity....to keep doing the same thing (voting for the GOP) and hoping for or expecting a different result.
This year is a first for me. I'm voting 3rd Party. And I won't be alone re: that.
I can be that too.....but you will NEVER catch me arguing 'for' the rabid leftists and/or for Hillary Clinton. I may argue on various minutia re: conservative stances, however. And my perception is that anyone supporting Trump is either knowingly (Trumpocrats that crossed over to vote for Trump) or unknowingly (LIV voters) supporting the election of Hillary Clinton. Which are you?
Eh....with all due respect.....considering some of your posts here (like the one where you basically called all anti-Trump folks children or juvenile).... your ability is sadly lacking. JS...
I agree for the most part in what you said ... except, the difference this election IS about the SUPREME COURT and our Bill of Rights is in jeopardy. The difference this election IS Clinton is running and we DO know what she is fully capable of and what she is capable of is what we are watching unfold before our very eyes.
It's not that she just wants mass immigration from Muslim territories and no wall across our southern borders, she wants open borders for the entire western hemisphere!!
If she tilts the Supreme court to the left (and we know she will) and we lose the Senate (which is likely) and the House, what exactly is there to stop her? We have a majority in both Houses now and Hussein rules on.
We cannot afford to allow Hillary to become president period. Our country will not survive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/8/hillary-clinton-dreams-open-borders-leaked-speech-/
-
This is key.
Even if WikiLeaks revealed something horribly damaging to Clinton at this point in the race, the damage done to her would be how willing the press would be to make it news
And that is one of the major reasons I'm casting a vote to keep her out of office. At this point, the media and entertainment elites have so stacked the deck in terms of voter influence that it is getting to the point where we'll have no chance at all moving forward. And with things like the Fairness Doctrine, regulation of political speech on the internet, and reversal of Citizens United all on the table if Hillary wins, voting for Trump is really the only tool I see available to have even the slimmest hope of stopping that.
-
I still *HATE* Ross Perot voters. I am aware that George HW Bush did the majority of damage to himself, but the people so stupid as to vote for H Ross Perot, handed the election to Clinton.
Clinton was an utter disaster. People still do not realize what a horrible President he was. I couldn't stand George HW Bush, but I knew what sort of utter scum Bill Clinton would be, and he did not disappoint.
And Hillary is Worse. She is the true ideologue in that relationship. I think Bill Clinton would have happily pretended to be a conservative if he thought that would have worked. (This is what he actually did do as Governor of Arkansas. )
You have only yourself and your tribe of orange tic-tac trumpkins to blame for the mess we are in.
So don't go all boo hoo Third party/Ross P. crap on us.
-
Here's the logic. If they (Trump supporters here) really wanted to keep Hillary out of the White House....they would be willing to drop Trump from the ticket and go with Pence. I would vote for Pence as president in a heartbeat. As would many others. But for "some" reason, the Trump supporters are vehemently against that solution. You have to ask yourself 'why' that is. (I already know)
To double down on that, Wikileaks has shown something that we have been saying all along, Trump was Hillary's stalking horse. She was his preferred candidate and she was pushing him to run as early as April of last year, long before he announced. His staff even said Hillary's only hope was Trump as the candidate.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,229060.0.html
So knowing this, when it is right there in their face, from Hillary's chief of staff's own keyboard, continuing to support Trump is literally supporting Hillary's agenda, not even in some round about, figurative way.
They now are knowingly in the Hillary camp. No pretzel twisting out of that.
-
On the issues important to republican voters, on the issues as President has some control over, Donald Trump was the most conservative candidate running, which is why he won. You NeverTrumpers are going to be very unpopular to all but Hillary voters if Trump loses. Just go look on Paul Ryans Facebook page to see what is coming your way.
@DiogenesLamp @XenaLee
Conservatives don't care what you liberal voters think. YOU have the history books to look forward to. The ones that will lay the blame squarely on your shoulders. Where it so rightly belongs.
-
And Hillary is Worse. She is the true ideologue in that relationship. I think Bill Clinton would have happily pretended to be a conservative if he thought that would have worked. (This is what he actually did do as Governor of Arkansas. )
Agreed.
That's why I have to fight a tendency toward strong antipathy for Trump supporters, who have led us to elevating Hillary to POTUS.
-
I have said all along that they want liberalism. thay don't care which liberal gets in. To do that, they have gone far out of the bounds of any prior campaign to destroy not only conservatives running but places where conservatives gather, places that broadcast/print conservative philosophy and ideas and conservative supporters of those conservative candidates.
That is a hallmark of Democrat/liberal politics as shown by Emanuel, Axlerod, Podesta, Blumenthall, Schmitt, Wallace, Stone...and a certain determined group of posters here with an agenda that like to also hang out at FR.
Gee. What are the odds I wonder?
Sure, cause...you know....liberalism is so much easier (and more fun) than going with conservatism.
With liberalism you get to party like it's 1999 (forever) on other people's dime, and with no real expectations of any criticism (everybody's doin it!). With conservatism you have to actually behave yourself like a civilized, decent adult (borrrrring) and you have to actually be mindful of what you spend and (gasp!) be frugal (a dirty word to the left) with your money and with the finances of others. Worrying about how much of the tax-payers dime you're spending or wasting is so passé, after all. Just ask the Obamas and the Clintons.
Being a liberal is the easy path in life. And leftists always choose the easy way.....vs. the right way.
-
. Just go look on Paul Ryans Facebook page to see what is coming your way.
What? Enlighten us
-
What? Enlighten us
Vile comments, physical threats, disgusting comments about his family, calls of treason with references to hanging and guillotines. Welcome to Trumpville.
-
Vile comments, physical threats, disgusting comments about his family, calls of treason with references to hanging and guillotines. Welcome to Trumpville.
Is that what they are doing? I'll confess to not actually seeing his FB page
-
On the issues important to republican voters, on the issues as President has some control over, Donald Trump was the most conservative candidate running, which is why he won. You NeverTrumpers are going to be very unpopular to all but Hillary voters if Trump loses. Just go look on Paul Ryans Facebook page to see what is coming your way.
@DiogenesLamp @XenaLee
And....what's your point?
Do you honestly think those who vote their conscious are doing so to win a popularity contest?
:shrug:
-
You have only yourself and your tribe of orange tic-tac trumpkins to blame for the mess we are in.
So don't go all boo hoo Third party/Ross P. crap on us.
Every time a Clinton runs for President a crazy billionaire runs for President as well...
-
I'm actually in agreement with the Major on this point. I no longer think there is this 'silent' Conservative Christian majority in the country waiting for a Conservative to come riding in to save us.
The state of our debased culture is an indictment the 'Silent Majority's' failure and perhaps an indicator of their own compromised foundations.
Liberty cannot exist in this environment of selfish ignorance, and we are just discovering that truth, despite the warnings from the Founders of that exact thing.
Sad as it is, our only political hope is for a conservative with sufficient personal charisma/communications skills to overcome that bias and lack of support. In other words, we need to attract voters who will vote for a guy not because he is a good conservative, but because they "just like him/her."
We all should learn a lesson from how quickly public opinion on gay marriage flipped in this country after the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell. Though it was a purely legal decision, it apparently impacted how a great many uninvolved people saw this as a moral issue. The relevance of that point is that if we do manage to get the right leader in power, moral suasion and favorable legislation/Supreme Court rulings might offer some hope of pushback on the broader cultural/moral issues. That's particularly true in terms of the push downward that comes from the DOE, and how it influences schools and universities.
It's a slim hope, I'd admit.
-
What? Enlighten us
He thinks Tumblrina/Reddit style brigading is the path to winning. It's the preferred tactic of the leftist SJW set.
-
And....what's your point?
Do you honestly think those who vote their conscious are doing so to win a popularity contest?
:shrug:
Thats part of they they want trump. To feel like one of the flock. An individual, just like all their friends! So they think conservatives think like they do.
-
Is that what they are doing? I'll confess to not actually seeing his FB page
Oh yea, they are being vile towards him (check FR too).
And old @jpsb has the gall up thread to say in direct terms 'that is what is coming our way' if we continue to oppose Trump and he loses.
Nice threat there JP. Luckily, I don't give much credence to chairborne rangers.
-
So you're saying that the Dems have no morals or scruples, and we should emulate that?
I say we should not let nickles hold up dollars. Here is an example of what I mean from the mouth of God himself.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. 14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
There are bigger moral issues and there are lesser moral issues, and one is a fool if one lets the lesser moral issues govern the greater.
That's insane - especially with the MSM against us. Our scandals stick because the MSM sees to that. That may not be fair, but that's reality. A man caught on tape reveling that his wealth and fame permits him to sexually assault women is not going to survive politically.
Like Bill Clinton?
You act like someone who is completely unaware of the fact that the media helped spread the "CRUZ IS AN ADULTERER" story. Are you freaking kidding me? If the media doesn't have a scandal, they will INVENT a scandal.
Remember "George HW Bush had an affair!" ? Remember "McCain had an affair!"? Remember "McCain doesn't know how many houses he has!" ? Remember "Romney was a bully in school who cut someones hair against their will!" ?
After dozens of iterations, I would think people on our side would have finally caught on to how this game is played.
Trump and Trumpism is dead unless Trump shows he's a bigger man than we'd thought possible - by stepping down.
That statement is cretinous. Surrender is tantamount to massacre. What is wrong with you?
-
I agree for the most part in what you said ... except, the difference this election IS about the SUPREME COURT and our Bill of Rights is in jeopardy. The difference this election IS Clinton is running and we DO know what she is fully capable of and what she is capable of is what we are watching unfold before our very eyes.
It's not that she just wants mass immigration from Muslim territories and no wall across our southern borders, she wants open borders for the entire western hemisphere!!
If she tilts the Supreme court to the left (and we know she will) and we lose the Senate (which is likely) and the House, what exactly is there to stop her? We have a majority in both Houses now and Hussein rules on.
We cannot afford to allow Hillary to become president period. Our country will not survive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/8/hillary-clinton-dreams-open-borders-leaked-speech-/
I'll second all of that.
In the final analysis the last thing in the world I would want on my conscience is having assisted Hillary Clinton and the progressive left in even the slightest manner.
The latest batch of leaked Wikileaks emails reminds us of what Clinton is. I am forced to take a huckster at his word he will appoint non-ideologues to SCOTUS, reinsert common sense into our immigration policies, and at least stop baring the US's throat to our enemies. I have no choice.
Even if we aren't responsible for getting us to this wretched state of affairs, we are responsible for what we do from this point forward.
-
So knowing this, when it is right there in their face, from Hillary's chief of staff's own keyboard, continuing to support Trump is literally supporting Hillary's agenda, not even in some round about, figurative way.
They now are knowingly in the Hillary camp. No pretzel twisting out of that.
Hillary certainly preferred Trump to come out of the GOP primary -- he was the candidate they most preferred to face in the general election because they thought he was the most beatable. So, they wanted him to win the GOP primary. But now that he is the nominee, they most assuredly do not want Trump to win the general election because they want Hillary to win the general election.
Equating support for Trump in the primary to support for Trump in the general election is absurd, and actually gives Hillary exactly what she wanted all along -- people not to vote for the GOP nominee. So, if we're going to cast votes based on what HRC doesn't want, we should vote for Trump in the general election. That's inarguable.
-
What? Enlighten us
What you are incapable of googling Paul Ryan facebook? Besides which I find conservation with you tedious.
-
What you are incapable of googling Paul Ryan facebook? Besides which I find conservation with you tedious.
And yet here you are conversing with me
Besides, most Facebook accounts cant be seen without signing in and I'm not a member
-
Hillary certainly preferred Trump to come out of the GOP primary -- he was the candidate they most preferred to face in the general election because they thought he was the most beatable. So, they wanted him to win the GOP primary.
They were pushing him before the primary, in April. He was their tool.
It is time we oppose all things Clinton, including her candidacy and her tool.
-
Vile comments, physical threats, disgusting comments about his family, calls of treason with references to hanging and guillotines. Welcome to Trumpville.
Yup that is what a everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumper.
-
This is key.
Even if WikiLeaks revealed something horribly damaging to Clinton at this point in the race, the damage done to her would be how willing the press would be to make it news
A point which I constantly make, and for which on some websites I am quite well known is this:
The media (Liberal Democrat Union Members who live in New York) are a THREAT to Democracy, and we should be directing the vast majority of our efforts and resources at Nuke Bombing them into oblivion.
The media manipulate elections. They do so by deliberately skewing their coverage to favor Democrats. They intentionally cover up news stories which are detrimental to Democrat candidates or Party positions and they work hard to hype stories which are damaging to Republican candidates or Party positions.
The media is a weapon that is consistently used against us, and we either need to destroy that weapon or we need to take it over and turn it's power back on it's former masters.
We are not going to win this war until we cut the media's throat.
-
Yup that is what a everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumper.
All 8 of you?
-
I don't know how much more clear we could've made it during the primaries - out of the dozen or so candidates Trump was probably WORST equipped to keep Hillary out of the White House. There're none so blind...
If they had nominated Jeb, I would have voted for Hillary. Better a quick death than a slow poison.
Please do not speak of Trump being the "Worst Candidate" when Jeb Bush was prominent among them.
-
To double down on that, Wikileaks has shown something that we have been saying all along, Trump was Hillary's stalking horse. She was his preferred candidate and she was pushing him to run as early as April of last year, long before he announced. His staff even said Hillary's only hope was Trump as the candidate.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,229060.0.html
So knowing this, when it is right there in their face, from Hillary's chief of staff's own keyboard, continuing to support Trump is literally supporting Hillary's agenda, not even in some round about, figurative way.
They now are knowingly in the Hillary camp. No pretzel twisting out of that.
Absolutely. They were warned repeatedly. We tried like hell to inform them. They willingly ignored us and went full-steam ahead with their Trumpism insanity. And now they're trying to blame the very ones that decried their dismal choice. It figures...since many of them really are Democrats (Trumpocrats) and they behave just as bad (now) as the same leftists we righties have been sparring with on the net for going on two decades now. Once the dots are connected, it makes perfect sense.
-
Yup that is what a everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumper.
That's fine, like I said up thread, I don't give much credence to chairborne ranger threats. Says more about you than 'NeverTrumpers'
-
We are not going to win this war until we cut the media's throat.
The media is cutting it's own throat. Trust in the press is at an all time low. People are noticing. I'm opposed to silencing them. But they are killing themselves in the eyes of the public and I say, let them
-
Yup that is what a everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumper.
This is why I'll be standing out of the way when hillary sends her brownshirts after useful idiots...AKA Trump supporters. You have it in print she hand picked trump to run against and you still support her handmaiden blindly. History shows time and again what liberals do with their zealots after they win.
Have fun!
-
If they had nominated Jeb, I would have voted for Hillary. Better a quick death than a slow poison.
Please do not speak of Trump being the "Worst Candidate" when Jeb Bush was prominent among them.
Oh my. You just outted yourself (finally).....and proved what many of us have been suspecting about you.
There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of us anti-Trump folks here would ever vote 'for' Hillary. But you guys would. I appreciate the rare display of honesty. Thanks for that, at least.
-
That's fine, like I said up thread, I don't give much credence to chairborne ranger threats. Says more about you than 'NeverTrumpers'
@AbaraXas
Oh, just pray for him. He's going through alot of emotional angst right now watching Trump's candidacy collapse. Mostly of his own doing
Think of his posts as a cathartic release
-
Oh yea, they are being vile towards him (check FR too).
And old @jpsb has the gall up thread to say in direct terms 'that is what is coming our way' if we continue to oppose Trump and he loses.
Nice threat there JP. Luckily, I don't give much credence to chairborne rangers.
It not a thread it is a simple observation, if Trump loses the NeverTrumpers will get the blame/credit. There is a firestorm going on it all social media right now and the NeverTrumpers are the target. Folks are getting awfully heated up about the lack of support for Trump by so called republicans/conservatives.
-
If they had nominated Jeb, I would have voted for Hillary. Better a quick death than a slow poison.
Please do not speak of Trump being the "Worst Candidate" when Jeb Bush was prominent among them.
I don't recall Jeb, for all his faults, having three rape accusations including one pedophile charge. I don't recall Jeb joking about sexual assault as though it was something he regurally did. I don't recall Jeb being accused of an ex wife in court documents of assaulting her, ripping out her hair, and forcing himself on her. I don't recall Jeb being accused of paying many mistresses to get abortions.
Jeb was pretty bad, but every bad issue you can find on Jeb, you can find Trump on that side of it at one time or another. Except Jeb also didn't have the criminal aspect to the level of Trump.
Trump is a mirror image of Bill Clinton in many regards. Even many of the positions he is taking now are from Bill's 92 campaign.
-
The media is cutting it's own throat. Trust in the press is at an all time low. People are noticing. I'm opposed to silencing them. But they are killing themselves in the eyes of the public and I say, let them
All true. But whats really strange is almost all conventional news media STILL takes their cues from the NYT.
To wit, a scandal is not a scandal - and will never reach critical mass - until the NYT says its a scandal.
Frustrating beyond words.
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
You don't? Well, that's just weird.
-
They were pushing him before the primary, in April. He was their tool.
It is time we oppose all things Clinton, including her candidacy and her tool.
That's ridiculous. They supported him in the primary because they thought he'd be easy to beat in the general election. It is no longer the primary, and in the general election, they most assuredly do not want people to vote for Trump. Your position that "we should stop Hillary's plan by either not voting, or voting for her" is logical gibberish.
I mean, not even James Carville could make that argument with a straight face.
-
It not a thread it is a simple observation, if Trump loses the NeverTrumpers will get the blame/credit. There is a firestorm going on it all social media right now and the NeverTrumpers are the target. Folks are getting awfully heated up about the lack of support for Trump by so called republicans/conservatives.
Trump said in his own words: "I Don’t Need Conservatives to Support Me" https://jtf.org/trump-i-dont-need-conservatives-to-support-me/
So it is all on them.
-
It not a thread it is a simple observation, if Trump loses the NeverTrumpers will get the blame/credit. There is a firestorm going on it all social media right now and the NeverTrumpers are the target. Folks are getting awfully heated up about the lack of support for Trump by so called republicans/conservatives.
Like I said above. Tumbliinas brigading SJW style.
Called it.
-
There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of us anti-Trump folks here would ever vote 'for' Hillary. But you guys would.
Uh, just be careful with the "you guys". I'd have voted for Jeb in heartbeat over Hillary, if only for the judicial nominations.
-
And I'm with you on Trump -- By March, what Trump said in 2005 will be completely irrelevant to what is happening in the country. Give me a choice between a Supreme Court Justice and Trump admitting to what 80% of these other pols likely say anyway, and it should be a no brainer.
But what has happened is that those who already opposed Trump have latched onto this as yet another reason to pile on. Personally, I'd say that anyone who made up their mind based on this stupid story should be ashamed of themselves. If the Supreme Court, immigration, etc., were important enough reasons before to back this flawed candidate, that shouldn't have changed.
It is a tempest in a teacup. Bill Clinton has done far worse, yet the media assured us that "it was about sex" and therefore was a non issue.
Once again I point out that the media CONTROLS whether something is a "MAJOR STORY" or a big nothing.
We should have been working to destroy their control over the public airwaves. The media is our enemy, and if the country is ever to be made functional, their control will have to be destroyed.
-
If they had nominated Jeb, I would have voted for Hillary. Better a quick death than a slow poison.
Please do not speak of Trump being the "Worst Candidate" when Jeb Bush was prominent among them.
That's exactly the mindset (common among TOS) that cost Romney the election. The weird people who had to have perfection in their candidate somehow find Donald Trump acceptable.
-
On the issues important to republican voters, on the issues as President has some control over, Donald Trump was the most conservative candidate running, which is why he won. You NeverTrumpers are going to be very unpopular to all but Hillary voters if Trump loses. Just go look on Paul Ryans Facebook page to see what is coming your way.
@DiogenesLamp @XenaLee
Oh bullchit. Donald Trump is about as far from conservative as Hillary is. Both New York liberals and both despicable POS excuses for a human being, IMO.
As for what is "coming our way".....it's coming for you too. The Liberalism that Hillary will unleash is coming. For all of you Trump followers. You're just not quite bright enough to discern that reality....much less the reality that you guys helped to usher Her Evilness 'in'.
-
@AbaraXas
Oh, just pray for him. He's going through alot of emotional angst right now watching Trump's candidacy collapse. Mostly of his own doing
Think of his posts as a cathartic release
I laugh at all of it, I don't take them seriously. I can just imagine people sitting at their keyboards, screaming at their monitors and typing away, thinking they are changing the world when 99% couldn't be bothered to actually leave their house and do something themselves to make the difference they expect government to do for them.
-
That's exactly the mindset (common among TOS) that cost Romney the election. The weird people who had to have perfection in their candidate somehow find Donald Trump acceptable.
Oh...I believe it was something much more sinister and more contrived than merely 'having to have perfection in a candidate'. Trumpocrats = Democrats posing as anything other than Democrats.
-
Trump was defending Bill and trashing his accusers just months before he ran, until he got that phone call.
“Linda Tripp may be one of the most unattractive human beings I’ve ever seen—not women, human beings. She’s just an unattractive person. This [Lucianne] Goldberg person, her agent or whatever she is, is just a terrible woman. You look at Paula Jones, I mean the whole cast of characters...It’s like it’s from Hell. It’s a terrible group of people.”-- Donald Trump
It's a real shame that so many people that Trump has trashed and bullied have allowed him to take advantage of them. Lucianne has allowed her site to be taken over by trumpettes. It's not worth going to any more.
-
I laugh at all of it, I don't take them seriously. I can just imagine people sitting at their keyboards, screaming at their monitors and typing away, thinking they are changing the world when 99% couldn't be bothered to actually leave their house and do something themselves to make the difference they expect government to do for them.
@AbaraXas
I think you just described the TOS Civil War 2 Keyboard General wannabes.
-
Like I said above. Tumbliinas brigading SJW style.
Called it.
It is the BLM riot campaign.
Both sides screaming and rioting (in their own ways) for the government to come in and fix things for them...
...none of them actually getting off their asses to go do something themselves like pick up a piece of trash, run for local office, join community groups, adopt a child that would be aborted, etc, etc, etc..
Just screaming and making threats at bits and bytes on the other side of their monitor, thinking that will change the world.
-
Uh, just be careful with the "you guys". I'd have voted for Jeb in heartbeat over Hillary, if only for the judicial nominations.
Yeah....it also occurred to me that I shouldn't try to speak for all of the anti-Trumpers here re: never voting for Hillary, either...lol.
Point taken.
-
Mark Davis at KSKY The (Wrong) Answer must have received the same message. In his first ten minutes he stated there are only two types of conservatives at this moment:
1. Those who will fight for the country to keep Hillary from the White House.
2. Conservatives who are ok with a Hillary presidency.
Thankfully, I arrived at work shortly thereafter.
Mark Davis. That's a name I have not heard in a very long time. I guess you must be in the Dallas area.
Mark, Mark, Mark. He was so pious and judgmental ... but now, I guess, any kind of behavior is okay. Supporting Trump will hang over your head forever, Mark.
-
Donald TicTac Trump's campaign slogan should be: HATE WINS
So true. Donald has tapped into the dark side of his followers. They hate and they love that he hates too.
-
It is the BLM riot campaign.
Both sides screaming and rioting (in their own ways) for the government to come in and fix things for them...
...none of them actually getting off their asses to go do something themselves like pick up a piece of trash, run for local office, join community groups, adopt a child that would be aborted, etc, etc, etc..
Just screaming and making threats at bits and bytes on the other side of their monitor, thinking that will change the world.
It's the liberal way afterall. This is the same exact shit I used to deal with fighting Eco nazis back in the 90s and God knows they did the same thing via 'letters to the Editor" before the net went into wide use.
And thats just the 'social media' per se type aspect. If you have ever been to Mexico during an election, Trump's faithful behave exactly the same way. Lots of threats, lots of screaming, lots of empty sloganeering and lying through their teeth about the other guy.
When it's over, they think that everything goes back to normal and everyone is back to being friends.
Doesn't ever work out that way.
-
It is a tempest in a teacup. Bill Clinton has done far worse, yet the media assured us that "it was about sex" and therefore was a non issue.
Once again I point out that the media CONTROLS whether something is a "MAJOR STORY" or a big nothing.
We should have been working to destroy their control over the public airwaves. The media is our enemy, and if the country is ever to be made functional, their control will have to be destroyed.
Here's the problem with that "tempest in a teacup" meme and false analysis. Trump, in order to beat Hillary, will need every single vote that he can dredge up and get. Instead of gaining votes, he's losing them....in droves. That TiaT is costing him the election, as planned. And they say there is yet more coming...more exposure of the "real" Donald Trump. And no....merely pointing to Bill Clinton and saying "But..but...but....Bill did far worse!" ain't gonna cut it. Not now. Not ever.
-
Oh bullchit. Donald Trump is about as far from conservative as Hillary is. Both New York liberals and both despicable POS excuses for a human being, IMO.
As for what is "coming our way".....it's coming for you too. The Liberalism that Hillary will unleash is coming. For all of you Trump followers. You're just not quite bright enough to discern that reality....much less the reality that you guys helped to usher Her Evilness 'in'.
Bull? Trump is for enforcing our immigration laws including deportation. Who else was prior to Trump making it safe to take that position.
Trump is for building the wall and securing our southern border. Who else?
Trump is for renegotiating bad trade deals and punishing those nations that cheat on trade. Who else.
Trump is for stopping our participation in all these useless nation building wars. Who else was?
Trump is for partnering with Russia to go after ISIS and all the other Islamic Terrorists. Who else was?
Trump is for stopping the madness of letting in unvetted Muslim refugees. Who else was?
etc
It is very simple Trump is a nationalist and just about every other candidate is a globalist sans Huckabee, Santorium and maybe Paul.
-
It not a thread it is a simple observation, if Trump loses the NeverTrumpers will get the blame/credit. There is a firestorm going on it all social media right now and the NeverTrumpers are the target. Folks are getting awfully heated up about the lack of support for Trump by so called republicans/conservatives.
I have just two words for those folks.
Bring it.
-
Bull? Trump is for enforcing our immigration laws including deportation. Who else was prior to Trump making it safe to take that position.
Trump is for building the wall and securing our southern border. Who else?
Trump is for renegotiating bad trade deals and punishing those nations that cheat on trade. Who else.
Trump is for stopping our participation in all these useless nation building wars. Who else was?
Trump is for partnering with Russia to go after ISIS and all the other Islamic Terrorists. Who else was?
Trump is for stopping the madness of letting in unvetted Muslim refugees. Who else was?
etc
It is very simple Trump is a nationalist and just about every other candidate is a globalist sans Huckabee, Santorium and maybe Paul.
You don't follow the news or your own candidates positions very well. He reversed all that.
Canceled the muslim deporting and the Mexican deporting, the wall is now mostly virtual...and the part that isn't has a door for his touchback Amnesty...
You can look up the rest if you want. And you won't. So no point in me listing it all.
-
Ingraham and Hannity are reasons why I know longer listen to talk radio as much.
It's no coincidence that Ingram, Hannity, and Mike Gallagher are Trump supporters. They are three of the most lightweight, and most lacking in original thought or insight, talk radio hosts around.
-
It's no coincidence that Ingram, Hannity, and Mike Gallagher are Trump supporters. They are three of the most lightweight, and most lacking in original thought or insight, talk radio hosts around.
Bingo..
-
Mark Davis. That's a name I have not heard in a very long time. I guess you must be in the Dallas area.
Mark, Mark, Mark. He was so pious and judgmental ... but now, I guess, any kind of behavior is okay. Supporting Trump will hang over your head forever, Mark.
KSKY's ratings are about a 0.5, that's low in anybody's book. The order has been issued from Salem HQ: all Trump, all the time. Their ratings can't go any lower, can they?
-
It's no coincidence that Ingram, Hannity, and Mike Gallagher are Trump supporters. They are three of the most lightweight, and most lacking in original thought or insight, talk radio hosts around.
It is either air them in a Talk Radio Format, or go to chamber music, or go "Dead Air". Dead air is the only choice!
-
KSKY's ratings are about a 0.5, that's low in anybody's book. The order has been issued from Salem HQ: all Trump, all the time. Their ratings can't go any lower, can they?
94.5 K-Soul has better ratings.
-
How in the world can anything said on FAUX News be relevant.
-
KSKY's ratings are about a 0.5, that's low in anybody's book. The order has been issued from Salem HQ: all Trump, all the time. Their ratings can't go any lower, can they?
That explains a lot.
-
Bull? Trump is for enforcing our immigration laws including deportation. Who else was prior to Trump making it safe to take that position.
Just another ""suggestion"", as mentioned by Trump in that NY Times interview (probably due for release just before November). Cruz was, but nobody cared. Trump just parroted Cruz...just AS he parroted Reagan's "Make America Great Again" meme. Trump has never had an original thought in his thick head his entire life. All he knows how to do is 'copy' the words and ideas of others.
Trump is for building the wall and securing our southern border. Who else?
You obviously lead an incredibly sheltered (from information) life. The world didn't suddenly start turning the hour Trump announced he was running as a Republican, you know.
Trump is for renegotiating bad trade deals and punishing those nations that cheat on trade. Who else.
Problem is....Trump's negotiating skills would only serve to benefit Trump. It's how he rolls.
Trump is for stopping our participation in all these useless nation building wars. Who else was?
Who gets to determine what is useless and/or nation building? Trump? Based on what past experience in making such determinations???
Trump is for partnering with Russia to go after ISIS and all the other Islamic Terrorists. Who else was?
Lolol! Partnering with Russia. Yeah....that'll work. Cause.....we can really trust the Russians! :facepalm:
Trump is for stopping the madness of letting in unvetted Muslim refugees. Who else was?
Your hero/idol worship is well established here. But unfortunately, your disconnect from reality is also well established. And in case you didn't notice or missed it, Trump has also backtracked on his original 'harsh language' re: dealing with Muslim immigrants. Did you miss it?
It is very simple Trump is a nationalist and just about every other candidate is a globalist sans Huckabee, Santorium and maybe Paul.
Trump is a New York liberal that has, not that long ago, donated to and supported THE VERY WORST leftists in government that are busily, even now, trying to destroy us from within. At the very least, that proves just how sucky his judgment is. At the worst, it shows a pattern and history of him being 'in on it' and/or one of them (Democrats). He put his kids in charge of his campaign and guess what? They're all flaming Democrats. It's obvious to any that are not unwilling to see...
Trump is Hillary's gift that keeps on giving. And it's not even Christmas yet.
-
Here's the problem with that "tempest in a teacup" meme and false analysis. Trump, in order to beat Hillary, will need every single vote that he can dredge up and get. Instead of gaining votes, he's losing them....in droves. That TiaT is costing him the election, as planned. And they say there is yet more coming...more exposure of the "real" Donald Trump. And no....merely pointing to Bill Clinton and saying "But..but...but....Bill did far worse!" ain't gonna cut it. Not now. Not ever.
I think the point being made by @DiogenesLamp is not that it won't matter, but that it [/I]shouldn't[/I] matter, and that Republicans shouldn't be complicit it making it matter more than it should.
-
Who is the "we" of whom you are speaking???
-
I say we should not let nickles hold up dollars. Here is an example of what I mean from the mouth of God himself.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. 14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
There are bigger moral issues and there are lesser moral issues, and one is a fool if one lets the lesser moral issues govern the greater.
That is a HORRIBLE perversion of scripture to promote situational ethics and create some kind of morality out of wickedness. Yeshua DID NOT ABOLISH the Commandment by noting that serving men is greater than rescuing a sheep. The Commandment still stands. It was men making the commandment a burden to the indifference of men in need that Christ was addressing. He was NOT setting up a hierarchy of greater or lesser moral issues. The Law was always intended from the beginning to underscore justice, mercy and faith while keeping the ordinances to the letter rather than the traditions added to the Law by men.
Using such a verse to justify the selection of a proud immoral man for ruler because Hillary is worse is just another example of how Christianity in America has become nothing but lukewarm if not outright cold.
I am beginning to regard the constant efforts to torpedo the only candidate we will have as betrayal. I feel that if Hillary wins it will be in part because of the constant carping of people who have no better solution. It is engendering an animosity that is getting harder to resist.
So be it.
Your party betrayed us over and over again and Trump has sown irreparable division between Conservatives via his own threats, behaviors and those of his rabid followers.
I accept that this rift is irreparable, which is why I moved on and from a compromised and corrupted dead party.
We are in a war, and a small cadre of dissidents keeps trying to undermine our only chance at victory;
You have NO victory. The Constitution and Conservatism has no 'victory'. The GOP killed any chance of 'victory' when it spent it's majority power attacking Conservatives while handing Obama his agenda without opposition, and then everyone doubled down and made a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat Trojan Stalking Horse their prince.
Your party chose the only candidate who would lose to Hildabeast in a perceived engineered landslide and make her coronation look legitimate.
It will be difficult to forgive if they are ultimately successful at wrecking our only hope.
Your only hope?
And you people get so upset when it is mentioned that the Trump supporters want him for messiah and king.
As to forgiving - we didn't ask. We're not interested in having you people 'forgive us' for dumping your failed candidate, your failed party and moving onto where our principles are upheld and promoted.
Your nominee has succeeded in making this political division permanent. Fruits of the man you want to make your ruler.
-
I think the point being made by @DiogenesLamp is not that it won't matter, but that it [/I]shouldn't[/I] matter, and that Republicans shouldn't be complicit it making it matter more than it should.
The folks that it matters to are probably mostly Christians and Conservatives. So you're saying that morals and the lack thereof, in a presidential candidate, should NOT matter? Really?
If you really believe that, then....(with all due respect)...it sounds like you might be part of the problem....vs. part of the solution....to the disease that is currently ailing America. JS....
-
It not a threat it is a simple observation, if Trump loses the NeverTrumpers will get the blame/credit. There is a firestorm going on it all social media right now and the NeverTrumpers are the target. Folks are getting awfully heated up about the lack of support for Trump by so called republicans/conservatives.
Your prince and your fellow militants repeatedly told us we were not wanted nor needed *to win*.
The lack of support is something you told us did not exist. You insisted Trump's support was yuuuuuuuge.
So pound sand.
But if you thugs really and truly want to make good on your 'simple observation' about targeting those of us who will never support Trump -
- we will be waiting for you imbeciles to make that last mistake.
You wanna play Cowboys and Fascists? Okay then.
You just continue to push this divide and illustrate why no one in their right mind should have anything to do with you people or your political messiah.
-
I think the point being made by @DiogenesLamp is not that it won't matter, but that it [/I]shouldn't[/I] matter, and that Republicans shouldn't be complicit it making it matter more than it should.
Integrity matters. Respect for others matters. Character matters.
It ALL matters, @Maj. Bill Martin
This isn't a political issue that Republicans are making worse.
This is a question of fundamental soundness of character, and Trump's complete lack of it. The Republican party used to stand for something..... not just politically, but in matters of virtue. If we had a candidate or politician who fell short of moral values, he was disgraced, not lauded.
There are still a large number of Republicans who still believe the same things we've always believed and thought our party stood for. To find out that a plurality of "our" party has discarded respect for women, decency, legality, and is defending sexual abuse of women is extremely disturbing to many of us.
It is not those of us who have maintained our values who are dividing us.
It is those of you who are discarding every value we have ever stood for to defend a corrupt liberal politician like Trump.
-
That is a HORRIBLE perversion of scripture to promote situational ethics and create some kind of morality out of wickedness. Yeshua DID NOT ABOLISH the Commandment by noting that serving men is greater than rescuing a sheep. The Commandment still stands. It was men making the commandment a burden to the indifference of men in need that Christ was addressing. He was NOT setting up a hierarchy of greater or lesser moral issues. The Law was always intended from the beginning to underscore justice, mercy and faith while keeping the ordinances to the letter rather than the traditions added to the Law by men.
Using such a verse to justify the selection of a proud immoral man for ruler because Hillary is worse is just another example of how Christianity in America has become nothing but lukewarm if not outright cold.
So be it.
Your party betrayed us over and over again and Trump has sown irreparable division between Conservatives via his own threats, behaviors and those of his rabid followers.
I accept that this rift is irreparable, which is why I moved on and from a compromised and corrupted dead party.
You have NO victory. The Constitution and Conservatism has no 'victory'. The GOP killed any chance of 'victory' when it spent it's majority power attacking Conservatives while handing Obama his agenda without opposition, and then everyone doubled down and made a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat Trojan Stalking Horse their prince.
Your party chose the only candidate who would lose to Hildabeast in a perceived engineered landslide and make her coronation look legitimate.
Your only hope?
And you people get so upset when it is mentioned that the Trump supporters want him for messiah and king.
As to forgiving - we didn't ask. We're not interested in having you people 'forgive us' for dumping your failed candidate, your failed party and moving onto where our principles are upheld and promoted.
Your nominee has succeeded in making this political division permanent. Fruits of the man you want to make your ruler.
And you know what Jesus said about that "lukewarm" thing.
Revelation 3:16 ... So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Supporting Trump, a supposedly lesser version of evil, is still supporting evil and is, in effect, being "on the fence" ....or even jumping over to the evil side...when it comes to adhering to your Christian faith. I don't dare do that "lesser of evil" thing any more. It's not conducive to the retention of my soul.
-
The media is cutting it's own throat. Trust in the press is at an all time low. People are noticing. I'm opposed to silencing them. But they are killing themselves in the eyes of the public and I say, let them
I get that response a lot. I believe it demonstrates an incredible naivete regarding the monster with which we are grappling.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are grabbing more and more control over the internet and social media, and they are as left wing as it gets.
Broadcast media still has an enormous potential to manipulate elections, and they do it through entertainment as well. They sneak their propaganda into their stories in a manner to influence the gullible portions of the populace.
Remind you of anyone we know?
(http://wwwimage.cbsstatic.com/base/files/madamsecretary_ep_hpsp_2014_marquee.jpg)
And do you remember this?
This "Black" President aired from 2001 to 2006. Hmmm, I wonder why they did that?
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/157/5/1/24___President_David_Palmer_by_J_Kane.jpg)
This stuff is battle space preparation.
How about one more?
(http://thecollegeconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Glee.jpeg)
(http://www.ashleyfryer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glee-kiss.jpg)(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/110119/ew-cover-1139_300.jpg)
What access to the public do we have with which to balance this propaganda? Hmmm?
-
A little warning to you Trump supporters, more the fascist you are the less likely you will have some reluctant or very-reluctant Trump voters. You are not helping Trump at all..
-
I get that response a lot. I believe it demonstrates an incredible naivete regarding the monster with which we are grappling.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are grabbing more and more control over the internet and social media, and they are as left wing as it gets.
Broadcast media still has an enormous potential to manipulate elections, and they do it through entertainment as well. They sneak their propaganda into their stories in a manner to influence the gullible portions of the populace.
Remind you of anyone we know?
(http://wwwimage.cbsstatic.com/base/files/madamsecretary_ep_hpsp_2014_marquee.jpg)
And do you remember this?
This "Black" President aired from 2001 to 2006. Hmmm, I wonder why they did that?
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/157/5/1/24___President_David_Palmer_by_J_Kane.jpg)
This stuff is battle space preparation.
How about one more?
(http://thecollegeconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Glee.jpeg)
(http://www.ashleyfryer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glee-kiss.jpg)(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/110119/ew-cover-1139_300.jpg)
What access to the public do we have with which to balance this propaganda? Hmmm?
I get it the media is bad.. What do you expect Trump to do about it?? Regulate it?
-
Oh my. You just outted yourself (finally).....and proved what many of us have been suspecting about you.
There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of us anti-Trump folks here would ever vote 'for' Hillary. But you guys would. I appreciate the rare display of honesty. Thanks for that, at least.
Better a quick death than a slow painful one. I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary, but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this. You are all about hating Trump, and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate.
At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison", at least I would have some respect for you, and regard your position as morally based.
But you don't. You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.
-
I get it the media is bad.. What do you expect Trump to do about it?? Regulate it?
Absolutely not! The worst Idea of which I can imagine in the governance of a Republic is to allow the Executive Branch to have control over all the media. (Such as we would have with Hillary Clinton.)
I don't want a President involved with regulating the media, because it would be quickly twisted to his ends rather than the interests of the public.
But the evidence is ample that something must be done to balance or negate the influence of one party control of all the information streams.
I'm open to ideas, but what I have been long suggesting is the creation of a Board of Governors elected by national elections, and given the power to force the media to hire conservatives and provide balanced opinion to their constant stream of left wing drivel.
I would rather have regulation of the media in the hands of elected representatives than in the hands of Liberal cronies and allies. At the very least, it would likely reflect the same representation that Republicans and Democrats have in Congress.
If you got a better idea, i'm all ears.
-
Better a quick death than a slow painful one. I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary, but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this. You are all about hating Trump, and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate.
At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison", at least I would have some respect for you, and regard your position as morally based.
But you don't. You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.
So you don't even believe in fundamental ethics then, Dio? It's only "piety" (which you clearly deride) that makes men treat women with respect and refrain from molesting them? Incredible.
Do you not realize that ANY man worth ANYthing does not molest women?
And yet, here you are, maligning people who find sexual assault repulsive.
The "strategy" we offer is to vote for neither of the corrupt, evil candidates foisted upon us by two corrupt parties (one more recently corrupt than the other).
There are others on the ballot, and the strategy to not cheer on evil is one that many of us are choosing.
Obviously, you have chosen another "strategy," and that is to promote evil people and their evil deeds.
Not a particularly wise choice, is it?
-
Integrity matters. Respect for others matters. Character matters.
It ALL matters, @Maj. Bill Martin
This isn't a political issue that Republicans are making worse.
This is a question of fundamental soundness of character, and Trump's complete lack of it. The Republican party used to stand for something..... not just politically, but in matters of virtue. If we had a candidate or politician who fell short of moral values, he was disgraced, not lauded.
I'm not talking about lauding him for it. I'm taking about whether it should be a determinative factor in whether or not you should vote for him in a general election. And that's leaving aside all of Hillary's questionable moral failings....
But the bottom line is this: do you think a candidate's personal moral failings are more important that the policies supported by that candidate (including judicial appointments), and by their opponent? Because to me, who he and Hillary, respectively, choose to nominate to the Supreme Court is far more important, and far more relevant to the future of this country, than what was revealed in those tapes.
Do you agree, or disagree?
-
Better a quick death than a slow painful one. I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary, but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this. You are all about hating Trump, and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate.
That's how you would justify voting FOR Hillary? Seriously? There IS no justification for that, in my humble opinion. And yet, here you are.....even now....after admitting that YOU would vote for Hillary....trying to suggest that we anti-Trump folks are attempting to enable Hillary. Do you not see the disconnect in your logic (or lack thereof) here? You're talking in circles, DL. And for the record, I don't hate Trump. I hate what he stands for and what he has stood for most of his life and what he has done to the non-leftist side of the political aisle....which is divide us further and better than Obama ever could have....and by dividing us, has successfully destroyed us "from within". And here I thought Obama was the ultimate Trojan horse. Yet another idea that Trump has seen and has copied.....Trump is the GOP Trojan horse large.
At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison", at least I would have some respect for you, and regard your position as morally based.
You're the one supporting Hillary by supporting Trump. And as for any respect you might have had for me.....save it and stuff it. I'd appreciate you withholding that "respect" ....considering the source.
But you don't. You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.
And your strategy has been outted by your admission of guilt...ie that you would vote for Hillary over a Republican candidate "not" of your choosing. Again, thanks for the honesty....and for validating what I already suspected.
-
Better a quick death than a slow painful one. I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary, but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this. You are all about hating Trump, and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate.
At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison", at least I would have some respect for you, and regard your position as morally based.
But you don't. You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.
Actually we have been offering strategy since Reagan left office. Your camp would rather vote for liberals than ours of voting for conservatives, which is where it all begins, up to, apparently, blowing it up with Trump, and then with Hillary.
It's always excuses followed by that lame ass 'you got any ideas? Lets hear them!" nonsense. You have been hearing them for 2 decades. You just prefer voting liberal every election, then complaining about the consequence of your actions, then voting liberal in the next election, then ...ad infinitum.
Oh, but to give credit where do, you all occasionally take time to blame others for your mistakes.
-
Absolutely not! The worst Idea of which I can imagine in the governance of a Republic is to allow the Executive Branch to have control over all the media. (Such as we would have with Hillary Clinton.)
I would generalize that to putting control of political media in control of any branch or organ of the government....
I don't want a President involved with regulating the media, because it would be quickly twisted to his ends rather than the interests of the public.
Agree....
I'm open to ideas, but what I have been long suggesting is the creation of a Board of Governors elected by national elections, and given the power to force the media to hire conservatives and provide balanced opinion to their constant stream of left wing drivel.
Yikes! two questions:
1) what happens if/when this democratically elected "Board of Governors" turns out to be left-leaning....
2) who determines what constitutes a "conservative" that is required to be hired, and what constitutes a "balanced opinion?" Because I think their idea of conservative would rapidly become something on the order of "Hillary Clinton", and "progressive" would be something to the left of Elizabeth Warren. Both types of music -- country and western!
I would rather have regulation of the media in the hands of elected representatives than in the hands of Liberal cronies and allies. At the very least, it would likely reflect the same representation that Republicans and Democrats have in Congress.
I honestly think I disagree with this more than just about anything else I've read here. There are no good solutions to the problem of media bias, but the only one that offers any hope at all is keeping the government -- any arm of it -- as far away from regulating political speech as possible. At least conservatives will have the option to buy their own media time, networks, without government oversight or permission required. The worst thing about this is wanting it to mirror representation in Congress. Because what that means is that as soon as one party gains a clear political upper hand (as the Democrats did in the 2008) elections, they'll also have control of the machinery that controls/regulates political speech.
Additionally, this kind of structure would legally silence political discussion outside the two major parties. That's...not right.
-
Here's the problem with that "tempest in a teacup" meme and false analysis. Trump, in order to beat Hillary, will need every single vote that he can dredge up and get. Instead of gaining votes, he's losing them....in droves. That TiaT is costing him the election, as planned. And they say there is yet more coming...more exposure of the "real" Donald Trump. And no....merely pointing to Bill Clinton and saying "But..but...but....Bill did far worse!" ain't gonna cut it. Not now. Not ever.
The consequences of this are a fabricated product of the Liberal media. You are simply jumping through their hoops in trying to make this a story of consequence. It isn't. It is in fact stupid.
If Bill Clinton inserting cigars in one of his employee's unmentionable is not a story, Trump saying "Grab the P*ssy" is also not a story.
The vile and perverted members of the media are simply trying to spur outrage to this non-story. They do not care about explicit and vulgar sex stuff, they are just pretending they care so as to manipulate social conservatives in an effort to help Hillary.
(http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1470001821i/19878698.jpg)
And they do these sorts of things because we do not visit consequences upon them for these attempts to manipulate the elections.
-
Absolutely not! The worst Idea of which I can imagine in the governance of a Republic is to allow the Executive Branch to have control over all the media. (Such as we would have with Hillary Clinton.)
I don't want a President involved with regulating the media, because it would be quickly twisted to his ends rather than the interests of the public.
But the evidence is ample that something must be done to balance or negate the influence of one party control of all the information streams.
I'm open to ideas, but what I have been long suggesting is the creation of a Board of Governors elected by national elections, and given the power to force the media to hire conservatives and provide balanced opinion to their constant stream of left wing drivel.
So you want more Government?? Sorry I wouldn't trust the 'Board of Governors' to be conservative..
I would rather have regulation of the media in the hands of elected representatives than in the hands of Liberal cronies and allies. At the very least, it would likely reflect the same representation that Republicans and Democrats have in Congress.
If you got a better idea, i'm all ears.
My idea is to leave the Government out of it. I thought you wanted a smaller Government..
-
So you don't even believe in fundamental ethics then, Dio? It's only "piety" (which you clearly deride) that makes men treat women with respect and refrain from molesting them? Incredible.
I am not really in the mood to speak with strawmen today.
(https://inalienablerights.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/strawman21.jpg)(http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/strawman-300x225.jpg)
-
I'm not talking about lauding him for it. I'm taking about whether it should be a determinative factor in whether or not you should vote for him in a general election. And that's leaving aside all of Hillary's questionable moral failings....
But the bottom line is this: do you think a candidate's personal moral failings are more important that the policies supported by that candidate (including judicial appointments), and by their opponent? Because to me, who he and Hillary, respectively, choose to nominate to the Supreme Court is far more important, and far more relevant to the future of this country, than what was revealed in those tapes.
Do you agree, or disagree?
The problem is, Bill, that Trump's fundamental political beliefs are exactly the same as Hillary's
Before the revelation that he was also a sexual predator (in addition to being completely immoral in every sense of the word), the truth was know that he's a liberal with liberal political beliefs.
He is also a pathological liar, so to trust that he will select SC Justices that are in any sense of the word conservative is just a pipe dream of a hopeful naïf.
He is corrupt through and through, and that matters greatly.
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multified frauds, breaches of trust, and embezzlement of public property which tarnish the character of our country and disgrace government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster, 1823
Republicans used to do that. Some of us still believe in what the Founders believed.
And some clearly don't.
It matters.
-
The consequences of this are a fabricated product of the Liberal media. You are simply jumping through their hoops in trying to make this a story of consequence. It isn't. It is in fact stupid.
If Bill Clinton inserting cigars in one of his employee's unmentionable is not a story, Trump saying "Grab the P*ssy" is also not a story.
The vile and perverted members of the media are simply trying to spur outrage to this non-story. They do not care about explicit and vulgar sex stuff, they are just pretending they care so as to manipulate social conservatives in an effort to help Hillary.
(http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1470001821i/19878698.jpg)
And they do these sorts of things because we do not visit consequences upon them for these attempts to manipulate the elections.
Oh good grief. I'm not jumping through any hoops. It's not required.
How many times must we restate this. It's not about Trump's repulsive rhetoric and behavior, past OR present, in so much as it's about the voters' perception of him now. What part of "he's losing voters in droves" over this latest smut release are you incapable of comprehending? And there are presumably other releases, probably even more damaging, on the way. By the time November 8 rolls around, Trump's campaign will be DOA.
This is all EXACTLY what we predicted and tried to tell the Trump supporters from the beginning. That Trump has more bags and baggage than Hillary's eyes. And that it would be brought out, revealed, exposed AND USED by the Democrats.
And your deflection is typical and expected...considering that you have admitted that you would vote for Hillary over a Republican. Suspected it. Got it. You're out of the closet.
-
I am not really in the mood to speak with strawmen today.
If you can't communicate what you really mean, then maybe you should stop trying.
Because what I responded to is what you said.
Your dismissal is an indication that you have nothing with which to refute what my argument.
I suppose that's part of why you continue to defend a sexual predator.....
-
If you can't communicate what you really mean, then maybe you should stop trying.
Because what I responded to is what you said.
Your dismissal is an indication that you have nothing with which to refute what my argument.
I suppose that's part of why you continue to defend a sexual predator.....
Well hey, musiclady....on the bright and positive side....
at least he didn't do like most Trump-supporting (would vote for Hillary) lefties usually do...
and resort to the personal insults and name-calling...lol. That's something, I guess.
-
This is all EXACTLY what we predicted and tried to tell the Trump supporters from the beginning. That Trump has more bags and baggage than Hillary's eyes. And that it would be brought out, revealed, exposed AND USED by the Democrats.
I have read this a lot recently, and the only thing that comes to mind is...so what?
Look, I thought/said the exact same thing, but that was in the context of a primary election that has since been decided. Saying "see, I was right" really has absolutely zero value going forward. Yes, you were right, I was right, many of us were right. But how is that remotely relevant to the best course of action moving forward? It's over, done, in the past.
Perhaps if all those who supported Trump in the primaries could have seen into the future and seen what was going to happen, they might have voted differently. But they couldn't, and voted for Trump. Being "right" about that is irrelevant now.
-
I have read this a lot recently, and the only thing that comes to mind is...so what?
Look, I thought/said the exact same thing, but that was in the context of a primary election that has since been decided. Saying "see, I was right" really has absolutely zero value going forward. Yes, you were right, I was right, many of us were right. But how is that remotely relevant to the best course of action moving forward? It's over, done, in the past.
Perhaps if all those who supported Trump in the primaries could have seen into the future and seen what was going to happen, they might have voted differently. But they couldn't, and voted for Trump. Being "right" about that is irrelevant now.
You're actually asking "how" it's relevant? Quite simply....it is relevant now because the only chance the GOP has NOW of salvaging this disaster of an election is by forcing Trump to step down and running Mike Pence at the top of the ticket. That is the ONLY way they have a chance of winning at this point. It's not quite over yet....but it will be....if Trump supporters continue to insist on keeping Trump on the top of the ticket, despite all indications that he will lose, and lose badly, this November.
-
I would generalize that to putting control of political media in control of any branch or organ of the government....
Was the Production Code Administration all that bad? It wasn't an arm of the government, but it would have been had the Industry not taken the step of regulating itself. I do not believe any sort of self regulation is any longer possible. There is simply too much inbreeding between the existing media people and the Democrat party.
Yikes! two questions:
1) what happens if/when this democratically elected "Board of Governors" turns out to be left-leaning....
You mean unlike what we have now? Are you telling me you can conceive of a manner in which the media would be even more left wing? I figure we have pretty much pegged the needle on that, don't you?
And why would it be left leaning if it is elected from the States, or perhaps appointed by the State legislatures? Aren't most of the State legislatures currently in the hands of Republicans?
2) who determines what constitutes a "conservative" that is required to be hired, and what constitutes a "balanced opinion?" Because I think their idea of conservative would rapidly become something on the order of "Hillary Clinton", and "progressive" would be something to the left of Elizabeth Warren. Both types of music -- country and western!
I would suggest the designation of "adequate representation" would be made by the elected or Legislature appointed officials. I've been to a lot of party meetings, and i've met a lot of Republican elected officials, and I must say I generally trust their judgement about such matters.
I honestly think I disagree with this more than just about anything else I've read here. There are no good solutions to the problem of media bias, but the only one that offers any hope at all is keeping the government -- any arm of it -- as far away from regulating political speech as possible.
Uh Duh. That's what we have now. Have you not been keeping up with Obama's feeding stories to the press? We *HAVE* government control of media, so long as it is Democrat government. Hillary is controlling the press RIGHT NOW!
At least conservatives will have the option to buy their own media time, networks, without government oversight or permission required. The worst thing about this is wanting it to mirror representation in Congress. Because what that means is that as soon as one party gains a clear political upper hand (as the Democrats did in the 2008) elections, they'll also have control of the machinery that controls/regulates political speech.
I take it you haven't been keeping up with what has been going on lately with the FCC Commissioners?
We already have leftwing control. There is no place else to go but up.
What you are suggesting is that we leave the left wing control that already exists, locked into the system.
As a practical matter, this makes a solution to our larger problems unsolvable.
-
So you want more Government??
No! That's why I want the current Pro-Government propaganda corps forced to provide the opposition opinions and personnel.
Do you want more government? Just keep ignoring the problem. You will get more government.
Sorry I wouldn't trust the 'Board of Governors' to be conservative..
Yeah, they would be more liberal than what we have now. After all, about 95% of the media is Liberal, we might end up getting that last 5% of independents squeezed out of them.
My idea is to leave the Government out of it. I thought you wanted a smaller Government..
You are not going to get the government to stay out of it. We already have the government (Obama) dictating news stories, and a lot of people are working hard to get a different government (Hillary) controlling it in the future.
"Government" is already in it. The best we can do is use the power of government to force half of that government out of it.
We need to infuse new blood into the system until it is 50% non-government, and "WE THE PEOPLE" need to do it.
-
If you can't communicate what you really mean, then maybe you should stop trying.
I do not believe the communication problem is on the Transmitter end.
-
I do not believe the communication problem is on the Transmitter end.
Then assume you are communicating to someone stupid, (and not with a Mensa IQ like me), and speak in words dumb enough for a dumb person (like you think I am) to understand.
Give it a try.
Cause if you didn't mean what you actually said, I'd love to know what the heck you were talking about. ^-^
-
You're actually asking "how" it's relevant? Quite simply....it is relevant now because the only chance the GOP has NOW of salvaging this disaster of an election is by forcing Trump to step down and running Mike Pence at the top of the ticket.
Actually, who was right in the past is completely irrelevant to what is the right course of action to take now, but anyway....
How are we to accomplish removing Trump?
-
You mean unlike what we have now? Are you telling me you can conceive of a manner in which the media would be even more left wing?
Absolutely. I can easily conceive of a media where websites like this, talk radio, etc., are snuffed out.
I figure we have pretty much pegged the needle on that, don't you?
Not even close.
And why would it be left leaning if it is elected from the States, or perhaps appointed by the State legislatures? Aren't most of the State legislatures currently in the hands of Republicans?
Assuming the Democrats would agree to something like this, the emphasis still would be on the word "currently". What happens when they're not in the hands of Republicans?
I would suggest the designation of "adequate representation" would be made by the elected or Legislature appointed officials. I've been to a lot of party meetings, and i've met a lot of Republican elected officials, and I must say I generally trust their judgement about such matters.
The road to hell....look, I don't distrust those folks either. But once we cede to the government the protection of the First Amendment, we will never get it back.
Uh Duh. That's what we have now. Have you not been keeping up with Obama's feeding stories to the press? We *HAVE* government control of media, so long as it is Democrat government. Hillary is controlling the press RIGHT NOW!
No, not all of it. The weight of it is surely on her side, but dissenting voices can still be heard.
I take it you haven't been keeping up with what has been going on lately with the FCC Commissioners?
FEC commissioners, and yes, I have. I also know they've been shot down, and whatever pronouncements they come up with are still subject to the First Amendment. What you are advocating sounds to me like creating an FEC, but without those restrictions. How is that not worse?
Admittedly, this all may be academic anyway if Hillary gets in. Citizens United will disappear, the FEC will exercise that power, and we'd likely end up in the same place anyway. Government-controlled political speech in the name of "fairness".
Oh joy.
-
I have read this a lot recently, and the only thing that comes to mind is...so what?
Okay then. So what? They chose the worst possible abhorrent person to represent them and their party. They get to live with their choice without any support or sympathy from me.
There are consequences to that choice, and I had no hand or part in that choice, and I refuse to consent any support or endorsement to said choice.
I do not care that everyone will suffer that choice. They made it. They will have to live with it. I cannot stop foolishness and imbecility and I refuse to accommodate and support foolish and stupid decisions. They consigned us to Hillary. So be it. At least she is an enemy most of us agree is an enemy that we can stand together and oppose any attempted encroachments and edicts.
Not so with Trump.
But how is that remotely relevant to the best course of action moving forward? It's over, done, in the past.
There is no best course of action going forward, except to perhaps preparing to endure. They chose a Trojan Stalking Horse to represent them. A corrosive who has gone on to irrevocably divide their party and the Conservative movement.
Perhaps if all those who supported Trump in the primaries could have seen into the future and seen what was going to happen, they might have voted differently.
Doubtful. They want punishment and payback. They think Trump represents their chance to achieve that and 'git some'. Nothing else matters outside of all their hopes and change they have lofted onto the shoulders of the man they have made their defacto political messiah.
Being "right" about that is irrelevant now.
So is attempting to encourage support from or shame those who were correct all along to surrender their reasoning and principles to support such a dangerous affront and cretin for the office.
-
I get it the media is bad.. What do you expect Trump to do about it?? Regulate it?
Click: I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they want from Trump. (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,229101.0.html)
-
I was watching an old episode of Veronica Mars. In this episode there were some pretty horrible college campus rapes going on. A young guy was being falsely accused, and Veronica was investigating to prove his innocence. Veronica proves he's innocent and the victim and her supporters were angry at Veronica. They were furious and wanted someone, anyone, to pay for what happened and to be punished.
I think that is why Trump got nominated. Rage-filled people who hate what Obama did to this country and want someone punished for it. And they got so emotionally invested in Trump they can't admit they were wrong.
-
They demand that Trump govern like Obama but even less Constitutionally
-
i know, i know
you all hate trump
It's more that Trump hates America.
=======================
No its not. This place is full of haters. You all hated Phyllis Schafly too. And Franklin Graham.
Hillary wants to grope your <male chicken>. She's rich and powerful and can have you killed if you don't. I'm sure you'll allow it (if you don't want to end up like Vince Foster).
I guess that means you'll be 'consenting' to it, yes?
-
You're actually asking "how" it's relevant? Quite simply....it is relevant now because the only chance the GOP has NOW of salvaging this disaster of an election is by forcing Trump to step down and running Mike Pence at the top of the ticket. That is the ONLY way they have a chance of winning at this point. It's not quite over yet....but it will be....if Trump supporters continue to insist on keeping Trump on the top of the ticket, despite all indications that he will lose, and lose badly, this November.
How many primaries did Mike Pence win? More republican voters voted for Trump than did for Bush, McCain or Romney. Trump is the peoples choice not Mike Pence.
-
Okay then. So what? They chose the worst possible abhorrent person to represent them and their party. They get to live with their choice without any support or sympathy from me.
No argument there. If the relevant issue is "who gets the blame for Trump detonating the GOP's chances in 2016", you'll get no argument for me. I guess I just don't see the relevance of that moving forward.
I do not care that everyone will suffer that choice. They made it. They will have to live with it.
I agree, but again...so what? I don't think there's a lot of disagreement that the people responsible for Trump being the nominee are the ones who supported him in the primary.
So is attempting to encourage support from or shame those who were correct all along to surrender their reasoning and principles to support such a dangerous affront and cretin for the office.
Well, it just seems to me that has been sort of done to death. And as I said, I don't think the issue of Trump supporters being responsible for him being the nominee is something about which there was a lot of disagreement anyway. Even from Trump's primary supporters.
As an aside, I don't even have the heart to drift over to TOS and see what is being said there....
-
You are irrational. This statement demonstrates that you have not the slightest understanding of how politics actually works. This is baby talk. This is stamp your feet and throw a temper tantrum nonsense.
(http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screaming-Brat.jpg)
You would gain a few votes, but you would lose a hundred times the number.
Unreal.
Yes, since Trump entered the race, people have been straining at gnats and swallowing camels. He has certainly illuminated a tiny swath of Republican kooks, and not to mention a few backstabbers like Romney and Ryan.
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
Wait...
Whose side has been posting nonstop about if someone doesn't vote for the GOP candidate, they are voting for Hillary?
Trump supporters, that's who. YOU!
Whose threatening not to vote for the GOP candidate if it's someone other that Trump?
Trump supporters, that's who.
This is why the word of a Trump supporter is mud.
-
Whose threatening not to vote for the GOP candidate if it's someone other that Trump?
Trump supporters, that's who.
They'll all be voting Dem down ticket anyway.
-
How many primaries did Mike Pence win? More republican voters voted for Trump than did for Bush, McCain or Romney. Trump is the peoples choice not Mike Pence.
Well, he's the choice of some of the people -- enough to win the nomination under the rules as they existed at the time of those primaries. I'm personally a believer in the democratic process even when you don't like the results, so I don't think Trump should be removed from the ticket. On the flip side, he isn't "entitled" to have the support of other elected Republicans (that isn't part of the nomination), so tough noogies there.
I do agree with @INVAR , though, in terms of the responsibility for where we find ourselves. The truth is that some voters knowingly elected a guy about whom they knew very little, with a questionable background on some moral issues, and rolled the dice. Despite knowing that he lacked support among a lot of Republicans.
Now, that doesn't mean that we all still aren't responsible for how we vote in November, and the consequences of that election either way. I'm still voting for the orange reprobate simply because I see the alternative as so much worse.
-
I am beginning to regard the constant efforts to torpedo the only candidate we will have as betrayal. I feel that if Hillary wins it will be in part because of the constant carping of people who have no better solution. It is engendering an animosity that is getting harder to resist.
We are in a war, and a small cadre of dissidents keeps trying to undermine our only chance at victory; Our only chance at averting a very horrible outcome. It will be difficult to forgive if they are ultimately successful at wrecking our only hope.
I do too, starting with George Herbert Walker Bush who started this trainwreck by breaking his promise. That was a pivotal point in history. That is a point which guaranteed a Future Clinton presidency, and thereby created the conditions that caused this current Obama Presidency.
Subsequently, other members of the Republican party showed themselves to be pansies and cowards.
McCain didn't fight. Romney didn't fight. Boehner didn't fight. McConnell didn't fight. Out of the Entire Senate, only a few Senators were willing to put up a fight. (Ted Cruz being prominent among them.)
We have men without chests. They created the desperate desire on the part of primary voters to find someone who had one.
If you believe that we are in a war, then you believe that more than half of all Americans are the enemy. And in war, the enemy is to be killed.
In essence, you are saying that you'd like to see over 150 million Americans die.
And that's a sick point of view.
-
If you believe that we are in a war, then you believe that more than half of all Americans are the enemy. And in war, the enemy is to be killed.
In essence, you are saying that you'd like to see over 150 million Americans die.
And that's a sick point of view.
What is sick is someone attempting to put these words in my mouth and pretending I said them.
(http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/strawman.jpg)
Stop projecting your fantasies of the evil you think are in the minds of your opponents.
-
Oh yea, they are being vile towards him (check FR too).
And old @jpsb has the gall up thread to say in direct terms 'that is what is coming our way' if we continue to oppose Trump and he loses.
Nice threat there JP. Luckily, I don't give much credence to chairborne rangers.
Funny how all the direct threats to life, limb, and property come from Trump supporters. Who then claim that it's really Hillary that does it.
-
Actually we have been offering strategy since Reagan left office. Your camp would rather vote for liberals than ours of voting for conservatives, which is where it all begins, up to, apparently, blowing it up with Trump, and then with Hillary.
It's always excuses followed by that lame ass 'you got any ideas? Lets hear them!" nonsense. You have been hearing them for 2 decades. You just prefer voting liberal every election, then complaining about the consequence of your actions, then voting liberal in the next election, then ...ad infinitum.
Oh, but to give credit where do, you all occasionally take time to blame others for your mistakes.
I keep looking at what you write, and then I just move on. To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "It's not even wrong."
-
(http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ohnobill.jpg)
-
If they had nominated Jeb, I would have voted for Hillary. Better a quick death than a slow poison.
Please do not speak of Trump being the "Worst Candidate" when Jeb Bush was prominent among them.
Oh, so you do have principles you cannot violate... yet called for others to violate their principles.
Hypocrite.
-
Stop projecting your fantasies of the evil you think are in the minds of your opponents.
=====================================
(http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ohno.jpg)
-
No, not all of it. The weight of it is surely on her side, but dissenting voices can still be heard.
Not really. I actually don't think we have the same set of information from which to carry on a meaningful conversation on this subject.
You seem to see "great danger" in "doing something" and I see "great danger" in doing nothing.
I do not see how ceding control of every data circuit in the nation to the Democrats will ever work out benignly.
-
I was watching an old episode of Veronica Mars. In this episode there were some pretty horrible college campus rapes going on. A young guy was being falsely accused, and Veronica was investigating to prove his innocence. Veronica proves he's innocent and the victim and her supporters were angry at Veronica. They were furious and wanted someone, anyone, to pay for what happened and to be punished.
I think that is why Trump got nominated. Rage-filled people who hate what Obama did to this country and want someone punished for it. And they got so emotionally invested in Trump they can't admit they were wrong.
I see people who are emotionally invested in hating him and who cannot admit they are wrong.
I never got emotionally involved in Trump. I didn't think he was the best choice, but I recognized the fact that a lot of other people did.
My choice was Cruz, but seeing now what the media is doing to Trump, I'm pretty sure Cruz would have been wiped out.
-
=====================================
(http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ohno.jpg)
Unrelated to Happy's thought..or lack of...
Chelsea, is that your father?
No, we are not relations Sir.
-
I was watching an old episode of Veronica Mars. In this episode there were some pretty horrible college campus rapes going on. A young guy was being falsely accused, and Veronica was investigating to prove his innocence. Veronica proves he's innocent and the victim and her supporters were angry at Veronica. They were furious and wanted someone, anyone, to pay for what happened and to be punished.
I think that is why Trump got nominated. Rage-filled people who hate what Obama did to this country and want someone punished for it. And they got so emotionally invested in Trump they can't admit they were wrong.
I loved Veronica Mars and she has a good new gig now. But, seriously, that is exactly right. Trump tapped into the rage...into the dark side... into the revenge craving people and, yeah, after investing too much of their souls in this monster, they can't forsake him.
-
Oh, so you do have principles you cannot violate... yet called for others to violate their principles.
Hypocrite.
What "principle" is it that I am invoking when I say that it is better to have a quick death than a slow poison?
The principle that "pain should be short if possible"?
What is wrong with your understanding of what I write? Why are you always trying to read crap into it?
-
I see people who are emotionally invested in hating him and who cannot admit they are wrong.
I never got emotionally involved in Trump. I didn't think he was the best choice, but I recognized the fact that a lot of other people did.
My choice was Cruz, but seeing now what the media is doing to Trump, I'm pretty sure Cruz would have been wiped out.
Cruz would be so far ahead, Hillary would be packing. There is nothing the media could have done to Cruz. He is not a sick evil liar, cheater and whore.
-
I see people who are emotionally invested in hating him and who cannot admit they are wrong.
They were not and are not wrong to hate Trump. He deserves it. He deserves oh so much more.
-
There is nothing the media could have done to Cruz. He is not a sick evil liar, cheater and whore.
That wouldn't stop them. Remember Dan Rather in 2004?
-
Was the Production Code Administration all that bad? It wasn't an arm of the government, but it would have been had the Industry not taken the step of regulating itself. I do not believe any sort of self regulation is any longer possible. There is simply too much inbreeding between the existing media people and the Democrat party.
You mean unlike what we have now? Are you telling me you can conceive of a manner in which the media would be even more left wing? I figure we have pretty much pegged the needle on that, don't you?
And why would it be left leaning if it is elected from the States, or perhaps appointed by the State legislatures? Aren't most of the State legislatures currently in the hands of Republicans?
I would suggest the designation of "adequate representation" would be made by the elected or Legislature appointed officials. I've been to a lot of party meetings, and i've met a lot of Republican elected officials, and I must say I generally trust their judgement about such matters.
Uh Duh. That's what we have now. Have you not been keeping up with Obama's feeding stories to the press? We *HAVE* government control of media, so long as it is Democrat government. Hillary is controlling the press RIGHT NOW!
I take it you haven't been keeping up with what has been going on lately with the FCC Commissioners?
We already have leftwing control. There is no place else to go but up.
What you are suggesting is that we leave the left wing control that already exists, locked into the system.
As a practical matter, this makes a solution to our larger problems unsolvable.
State control over the media and what content is allowed?!?
JFC!
That's what both the Nazis AND the Communists did/do.
-
What is sick is someone attempting to put these words in my mouth and pretending I said them.
(http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/strawman.jpg)
Stop projecting your fantasies of the evil you think are in the minds of your opponents.
I'm not the one saying we are at war with those that don't vote the way we like.
I think you don't understand what war actually means.
-
What "principle" is it that I am invoking when I say that it is better to have a quick death than a slow poison?
The principle that "pain should be short if possible"?
What is wrong with your understanding of what I write? Why are you always trying to read crap into it?
What principle? The principle that it is better to have a quick death than a slow poison.
You'd vote your principle... but have called for others here to violate theirs.
That's rank hypocrisy.
-
That wouldn't stop them. Remember Dan Rather in 2004?
Dan Rather... the sick evil liar? That Dan Rather?
-
That wouldn't stop them. Remember Dan Rather in 2004?
Yes absolutely the media would have smeared Cruz.
The difference is it would not have stuck.
-
@CatherineofAragon
I think you've nailed a lot of hard-core Trump supporters exactly right. This did give them an opportunity to indulge their tantrums.
The problem is they forgot you have to win an election. And you have to at least start from the basis of nominating someone who is electable. For those of us NeverTrumpers, we dread the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency and fully understand what that's going to mean. But that doesn't mean you can put anybody out there to run against her and tell us you have to vote that person to keep her out
We are heading on a very dark path. Not just economically and fiscally but culturally as well. A member of this site had a great line and I tell other people it and I wish I knew who it was . The line is Hillary Clinton represents everything that's wrong with government . Donald Trump represents everything that's wrong with society. My only regret is I wish I came up with that line
And those of us who favor limited government ,fiscal responsibility, rugged individualism of people engaging in honest pursuit of self interest are going to face some tough times in the next several years. The path we are on in this country if it's allowed, to continue has a very horrible ending. It appears, and probably a lot of truth to it, that we pile up on Donald Trump more than we pile up on Hillary Clinton. Some of that is because we all know how badly corrupt and incompetent Hillary is. We just feel a sense of disappointment that we don't have any real choice to counter that this election cycle
Now that a Clinton presidency is all but imminent, The anxiety level of such a presidency is going to increase. And no question Trump supporters are going to feel a certain bitterness towards conservatives for not helping get their guy over the finish line and I guess I can understand that to a degree. But it's Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone that will be responsible
@LMAO
Good post. And you're right, the line you've been borrowing is right on target.
I'm just not going to allow myself to panic. The reality of a Clinton presidency will settle in soon enough, but no matter who's in the White House, the sun will come up every day and go down every night, we'll go about our days with our families, and God will still be in control.
There's only one point where we differ. I can't agree that Trump is completely to blame. He is who he is, and it was clear from the beginning. There's a wealth of information available about the man; anyone who wanted to find out about his past could have done so. Or if not, he revealed his nature over and over and over during his campaign. But his followers wanted to have their tantrum and "burn it all down", so they ignored all the warnings and all the attempts to reason with them. Well, it's all in ashes now, and they're going to have to live with the result. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.
Yes, I do blame his supporters. Completely and without doubt.
-
Dan Rather... the sick evil liar? That Dan Rather?
"Courage"
-
Cruz would be so far ahead, Hillary would be packing. There is nothing the media could have done to Cruz. He is not a sick evil liar, cheater and whore.
Did we not just watch the same primary election? Did you not see the media claiming he Lied about Ben Carson stopping his campaign? Did you not see the media repeating the allegations that Cruz engaged in Adultery?
It doesn't matter if he is innocent, the media will make crap up. Remember the accusations that George HW Bush had an affair? Remember the accusations that McCain had an affair? Remember the headlines that Romney put a dog on his car roof, and that he once cut the hair of a kid in school?
The media will spread lies, and if they can't find any, they will create them. They already hated Cruz for his filibuster of the government, and they were going to portray him as that evil Republican that shut down the government because he hates poor people.
Do not think that being squeaky clean is any defense against them. They will force you to deny false claims all day and every day so long as they can get away with it.
-
They were not and are not wrong to hate Trump. He deserves it. He deserves oh so much more.
WAAAAAAAAA!!!!
(https://paperforgood.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/screaming-kid.jpg)
-
That wouldn't stop them. Remember Dan Rather in 2004?
You're D@mn right it wouldn't stop them. A Sh*t they do not give about what is the truth. They will fabricate crap and create the "truth" they want to talk about.
Remember how we lost a Senator because they made him into a "racist" for using the word Macaca?
There was an opposition operative who followed Allen around filming him. They normally called the guy "Mr. Mohawk", and George Allen decided to add "Caca" which means "crap."
(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h45/citizencard/sidarth.jpg)
The media shrieked in the headlines that the word means "Monkey" in Portuguese, and Allen had deliberately called the man a "Monkey" because Allen is a RACIST!!!!!! (and apparently familiar with a tiny bit of Portuguese)
They play for keeps, and they do not care about the truth, or if they destroy careers, especially if they are Republican.
-
State control over the media and what content is allowed?!?
JFC!
That's what both the Nazis AND the Communists did/do.
You are acting like an idiot. You need to stop with the Straw man tactic.
-
I'm not the one saying we are at war with those that don't vote the way we like.
I think you don't understand what war actually means.
We are at War with the Democrats, and I very much understand what this means. Once again, you have either deliberately misread what I wrote, or you just didn't understand it.
-
What principle? The principle that it is better to have a quick death than a slow poison.
You'd vote your principle... but have called for others here to violate theirs.
That's rank hypocrisy.
Good Lord! It doesn't seem to be getting any better.
-
WAAAAAAAAA!!!!
(https://paperforgood.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/screaming-kid.jpg)
What a cute self portrait. You should blow your nose though.
-
Yes absolutely the media would have smeared Cruz.
The difference is it would not have stuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_the_United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2006#Allen.27s_Macaca_controversy
George Allen. "Macaca."
Also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal
I can probably find dozens more.
Rather gate almost stuck.
-
@LMAO
Good post. And you're right, the line you've been borrowing is right on target.
I'm just not going to allow myself to panic. The reality of a Clinton presidency will settle in soon enough, but no matter who's in the White House, the sun will come up every day and go down every night, we'll go about our days with our families, and God will still be in control.
There's only one point where we differ. I can't agree that Trump is completely to blame. He is who he is, and it was clear from the beginning. There's a wealth of information available about the man; anyone who wanted to find out about his past could have done so. Or if not, he revealed his nature over and over and over during his campaign. But his followers wanted to have their tantrum and "burn it all down", so they ignored all the warnings and all the attempts to reason with them. Well, it's all in ashes now, and they're going to have to live with the result. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.
Yes, I do blame his supporters. Completely and without doubt.
First Party.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Adolf_Hitler_1933_%28foto_carnet%29.jpg)
Second Party.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Otto_Wels.jpg)
Third Party.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-12940%2C_Ernst_Th%C3%A4lmann_%28scrap%29.jpg)
-
Did we not just watch the same primary election? Did you not see the media claiming he Lied about Ben Carson stopping his campaign? Did you not see the media repeating the allegations that Cruz engaged in Adultery?
It doesn't matter if he is innocent, the media will make crap up. Remember the accusations that George HW Bush had an affair? Remember the accusations that McCain had an affair? Remember the headlines that Romney put a dog on his car roof, and that he once cut the hair of a kid in school?
The media will spread lies, and if they can't find any, they will create them. They already hated Cruz for his filibuster of the government, and they were going to portray him as that evil Republican that shut down the government because he hates poor people.
Do not think that being squeaky clean is any defense against them. They will force you to deny false claims all day and every day so long as they can get away with it.
You are wrong. The media can try but the public is not that dumb. A bit dumb, but not that dumb.
-
What a cute self portrait. You should blow your nose though.
Tu quoque is not a very good comeback. It's about what I would expect from a kindergartner.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_the_United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2006#Allen.27s_Macaca_controversy
George Allen. "Macaca."
Also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal
I can probably find dozens more.
Rather gate almost stuck.
Allan wasn't running against one of the most unpopular figures to ever seek office, he was running against a well respected moderate.
And Larry Craig? Really?
-
You are wrong. The media can try but the public is not that dumb. A bit dumb, but not that dumb.
Are you telling me that the public which twice elected an unqualified idiot because he was black, is not dumb?
Are you telling me that a public, much of which thinks Hillary is the answer to something, is not dumb?
No, they're pretty dumb. The manner in which they can make a mountain out of Trump saying the word "P*ssy" and laugh off Clinton penetrating a subordinate with a cigar and raping lots of other women, indicates that they are pretty gullible.
Certainly dumb enough to believe whatever the media sells them. A representation of the Media/Voter process is depicted below. Media represented by the man in the middle with the raised stick.
(http://www.bu.edu/today/files/2012/06/t_WilkinsConducting.jpg)
-
@DiogenesLamp
And?
-
Tu quoque is not a very good comeback. It's about what I would expect from a kindergartner.
Man you sure are wound up tighter than the girdle of a baptist minister's
wife at an all-you-can-eat pancake breakfast today.
-
Allan wasn't running against one of the most unpopular figures to ever seek office, he was running against a well respected moderate.
If deliberate lies worked in that race, why would you not think they would work in another race?
And Larry Craig? Really?
I have no idea if the man is guilty, I only know that the media says he is. In any case, it wrecked his career. The point is, they didn't care if the allegations were true or not. They simply didn't care.
-
@DiogenesLamp
And?
Res ipsa loquitur.
-
We are at War with the Democrats, and I very much understand what this means. Once again, you have either deliberately misread what I wrote, or you just didn't understand it.
That is not what your compatriots have said. In fact earlier in this thread one of them SPECIFICALLY cited NeverTrumps being made targets should Trump lose. I've read more direct and insidious threats on other boards and groups directed specifically at NeverTrump Republicans/Conservatives.
So if we're touchy on the subject of a pro-Trump cheerleader using the terms 'we are at war', understand we have become conditioned to understand that means that if we do not support your chosen general, we are aiding and comforting the 'enemy'.
-
If deliberate lies worked in that race, why would you not think they would work in another race?
I have no idea if the man is guilty, I only know that the media says he is. In any case, it wrecked his career. The point is, they didn't care if the allegations were true or not. They simply didn't care.
They smear every republican running for national office.
Whether or not those smears stick usually depends upon the perceived integrity of the subject of the smears.
Cruz has integrity in spades. To everyone but the most fanatical Trumpkin, that is.
-
Cruz would be so far ahead, Hillary would be packing. There is nothing the media could have done to Cruz. He is not a sick evil liar, cheater and whore.
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
-
Did we not just watch the same primary election? Did you not see the Lord Trump claiming Ben Carson was psycho like a child molester stopping his campaign? Did you not see the Lord Trump repeating the allegations that Cruz engaged in Adultery?
It doesn't matter if he is innocent, the Lord Trump will make crap up.
The Dark Orange Lord will spread lies, and if he can't find any, he bwill create them. he already hated Cruz for his filibuster of the government, and they were going to portray him as that evil Republican that shut down the government because he hates poor people.
-
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
and you probably still think he was the Hillside Strangler too.
-
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
Not this (bull)sh*t again.
-
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
Will you stop it with the birther b******t!
-
We are at War with the Democrats
and you do that by attacking Republicans and smearing and lying about conservatives throughout the entire campaign.
That is some awesome strategy.
Your side are war with decency, truth, the Constitution, morality and conservatism.
-
Maine Governor Paul LePaige thinks this kind of rant helps Trump:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CufOBfeXEAAHgJt.jpg)
What gets me about that line of guff, is that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. If they'd dust it off and actually use it, we wouldn't have the mess we do.
-
Will you stop it with the birther b******t!
I did not bring Cruz into the conservation, but if you don't think the Rats and the media would use the fact that Cruz is not a natural born citizen (under original intent) against him you're crazy.
-
That is not what your compatriots have said. In fact earlier in this thread one of them SPECIFICALLY cited NeverTrumps being made targets should Trump lose. I've read more direct and insidious threats on other boards and groups directed specifically at NeverTrump Republicans/Conservatives.
So if we're touchy on the subject of a pro-Trump cheerleader using the terms 'we are at war', understand we have become conditioned to understand that means that if we do not support your chosen general, we are aiding and comforting the 'enemy'.
I am not responsible for what others may have said, only for what I myself say. As far as i'm concerned, we are all still allies here, but we are at *WAR* with the Democrats, and too many of you want to behave like Switzerland.
-
They smear every republican running for national office.
Whether or not those smears stick usually depends upon the perceived integrity of the subject of the smears.
Cruz has integrity in spades. To everyone but the most fanatical Trumpkin, that is.
His integrity didn't protect him from Trump's vicious attacks and the constant media repetition of them. I was shocked to see how so many conservatives turned against the only true ally we had in the entire Federal Government.
The media deliberately helped to defeat him. I saw it happening, and i'm surprised you don't remember how they kept spreading Trump's allegations against him.
-
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
And the media would have constantly hammered on that note. Also there is case law that does not bode well for Cruz if he was challenged on this point.
-
Not this (bull)sh*t again.
It is not bullsh*t. A man cannot be a "Natural Citizen" within a 1787 understanding of the term through a law created in 1952.
Had that statute never been created, Cruz would not even be a Citizen. Cruz's citizenship is therefore dependent upon statutory law, and not Natural Law.
("Natural Law" was a big thing in the last half of the 1700s.)
-
Will you stop it with the birther b******t!
It isn't bullsh*t. There really is a "there" there.
-
and you do that by attacking Republicans and smearing and lying about conservatives throughout the entire campaign.
That is some awesome strategy.
Your side are war with decency, truth, the Constitution, morality and conservatism.
I've been weighing whether or not to put you on ignore. I'm getting closer to making a decision with every post I see from you.
Dial it down a notch.
-
What gets me about that line of guff, is that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. If they'd dust it off and actually use it, we wouldn't have the mess we do.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2f/96/f7/2f96f7dec25a9f207e5817af01acc00b.jpg)
-
Res ipsa loquitur.
@DiogenesLamp
"tlhIngan Hol yejHaD jInmol chu' 'oH Qo'noS QonoS'e'. tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu'vaD wIcherpu'."
That's Klingon for "I probably should be impressed by your obscure Latin reference, but whatever."
-
It is not bullsh*t. A man cannot be a "Natural Citizen" within a 1787 understanding of the term through a law created in 1952.
Had that statute never been created, Cruz would not even be a Citizen. Cruz's citizenship is therefore dependent upon statutory law, and not Natural Law.
("Natural Law" was a big thing in the last half of the 1700s.)
An owned person could never be considered free under the 1858 understanding of the Constitution but for an amendment passed in 1865.
Sorry for the hyperbole, but your point is?
Our immigration policies and policies governing acquisition of citizenship have been determined by statute since almost the beginning.
-
Man you sure are wound up tighter than the girdle of a baptist minister's
wife at an all-you-can-eat pancake breakfast today.
ROFLOL!!!! 888high58888
-
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
This is the perfect exhibit as to the problem the GOP has. A significant plurality of it's primary voterbase live in an echo-chamber (fed by disinformation spewed by the perpetual grievance industry, right-wing subsidiary... aka talk radio).
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2f/96/f7/2f96f7dec25a9f207e5817af01acc00b.jpg)
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/66952084.jpg)
-
I am not responsible for what others may have said, only for what I myself say. As far as i'm concerned, we are all still allies here, but we are at *WAR* with the Democrats, and too many of you want to behave like Switzerland.
Your party already surrendered, and your candidate was one of their biggest enablers and donors, and some of his policies are to the Left of Sanders and to the dictatorial Right of Obama.
So you are welcome to him, all on your lonesome.
We have other plans.
-
and you probably still think he was the Hillside Strangler too.
...and let's not forget that it was his father that assassinated JFK!
-
Tu quoque is not a very good comeback. It's about what I would expect from a kindergartner.
Let me get this straight. You post a childish photo, behave like a child and I'm the kindergartner. I guess that you put you emotionally at the preschool level. You tRumpkins are a laugh a minute. ****sheep****
-
I would guess that if some random person put Happy against a wall, groped her and shoved his tongue down her throat, she would have a far different reaction than she has to Trump doing it to others. And it would certainly not be making excuses for and defending the sexual assaulter.
In fact, the same could be said for ANY female Trump supporter here or anywhere else. Likewise I would suspect that if any of the (theoretically) male Trump supporters saw their wife/family member so attacked, they would not be on TBR trashing anyone that called said sexual assault what it was.
Now if any Trump supporter cares to address the above and tell me it is IN ANY WAY incorrect, I would love to discuss why exactly that is. If they don't want to, I guess that speaks for itself.
Which would clearly show the flexible ethics of the Trump faithful at work.
This is one of the really destructive things Trump has done to the party faithful...he has made all the things common to the Immorality Party i.e. the Democratic Party acceptable to many Republicans. He has defined deviance down to where usually circumspect conservatives praise a nominee who equals Slick Willy's sexual deviance or worse.
It is now okay (according to the Trumpsters) to have the morality of an alley cat to get elected. In fact, many of them argue you're not a real male unless you've grabbed for some woman's genitalia. Hopefully the crashing of the S.S. Trumperburg will stop the future nomination of equally immoral ignoramuses.
-
They way to take down Hillary was to defeat her not insult her. Trump wins a few insult battles but is losing the war overall. The result of supporting Trump is the opposite of your stated goal. Trump was her most favored opponent and you gave her that.
Trump is under the delusion that he is losing because he's being betrayed by all the icky Pubbie elites. The truth is the average undecided American voter is seeing Trump for who he really is and acting accordingly.
-
Trump was defending Bill and trashing his accusers just months before he ran, until he got that phone call.
“Linda Tripp may be one of the most unattractive human beings I’ve ever seen—not women, human beings. She’s just an unattractive person. This [Lucianne] Goldberg person, her agent or whatever she is, is just a terrible woman. You look at Paula Jones, I mean the whole cast of characters...It’s like it’s from Hell. It’s a terrible group of people.”-- Donald Trump
It's sort of funny that Lucianne Goldberg's website is dominated by Trumpsters. Not quite the dictatorship of TOS but still a Trump stronghold. Equally ironic that Lucianne's son, Jonah Goldberg, is one of the biggest Trump critics and accurately predicted the current horror show.
-
Let me get this straight. You post a childish photo, behave like a child and I'm the kindergartner. I guess that you put you emotionally at the preschool level. You tRumpkins are a laugh a minute. ****sheep****
@beandog
Bean, Never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
-
I guess I must have missed the moment! I'm still waiting for a miracle that eliminates both Trump and Clinton. :shrug:
-
I'm thinking both Ingraham and Hannity among others have been told by Trump there is a place for them at his new network as long as they continue to go along with the con and keep kissing his magnificent butt until after the election...
It would be interesting to go back and collect Ingraham's comments about Slick Willy's sexual escapades. I doubt she was approving.
But I guess that kind of stuff is alright now. Probably just a bunch of loose floozies Trump jumped on. They probably egged him on. Wasn't his fault....just a redblooded American male doing what normal, alpha males do.... sexually assault attractive women.
-
It's always entertaining when 'conservatives' that campaign on behalf of abortion profiteers, sexual abusers, gay advocates and big government liberals tell conservatives that actually maintain the principles of conservatism, what 'kind' of conservative they are.
Get them off the air and onto a neutral forum where it's not a one way conversation and lets see how long they hold up with their 'logic'.
I'd like to pin Davis and his ilk against the wall and ask them what they think of Trump's support of Kelo vs. Connecticut. All the conservative justices opposed it. All the lib justices thought it was fine. I guess it's alright for a wealthy person to kick people off their property to make himself a buck.
-
...and let's not forget that it was his father that assassinated JFK!
of course
-
An owned person could never be considered free under the 1858 understanding of the Constitution but for an amendment passed in 1865.
If you are pointing out that we have never amended the "natural born citizen" requirement for the Presidency, you are correct.
Sorry for the hyperbole, but your point is?
Self evident, I thought. How can a person meet the requirements set in 1787 through a law passed in 1952 which substantially alters them? Only an amendment to the constitution can change the requirements. You can't do it through a "backdoor" passage of a law.
Our immigration policies and policies governing acquisition of citizenship have been determined by statute since almost the beginning.
That's fine for immigration, but it has no effect on PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS. Those can only be changed through amendment, and no, redefining the meaning of words does not work either. That is a just a trick, and one which should not fool people of normal intelligence.
-
of course
You see, THAT is the reason I couldn't vote for Cruz in the primary....
I could deal with all the bimbos revealed by National Enquirer, and his ugly wife, and the pictures of him when he was in the Adam's Family, and even that really cool avatar of the Trump troll of him as a purple penguin.....
But when I found out his Dad really DID kill JFK, and I remember well that day in 1963 when I cried so much...... THAT was the reason I just couldn't pull the lever for Ted.
Killing presidents just isn't cool. :smokin:
-
This is the perfect exhibit as to the problem the GOP has. A significant plurality of it's primary voterbase live in an echo-chamber (fed by disinformation spewed by the perpetual grievance industry, right-wing subsidiary... aka talk radio).
Something we agree on. Yes, they live in an echo chamber, and this is why they do not have a correct understanding of the term "natural born citizen." They listen to what ignorant legal "experts" say about it instead of actually researching it's origins.
-
@beandog
Bean, Never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Well, at least they TRY to drag you down to their level.
It's hard to reach the sub-basement of character in one thread.
But you're right with that experience thing.
Put this one on IGNORE and then LOOK at the spamming he's done. Not one word of intellect or truth in a zillion posts.
It's fascinating.
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/66952084.jpg)
Yeah, me too. I think we lost Kansas back in 1861.
-
Your party already surrendered, and your candidate was one of their biggest enablers and donors, and some of his policies are to the Left of Sanders and to the dictatorial Right of Obama.
So you are welcome to him, all on your lonesome.
We have other plans.
I do not believe Trumps "conversion" is genuine, rather I believe it is opportunistic. He wanted to be President (He has always been motivated by ego) and there was no way he was going to be able to elbow Hillary out of the way for the Democrat nomination, so he "converted".
That being said, I don't think he is actually very ideological, and it is my hope that he will adopt policies which his hopefully conservative advisers will suggest. He has already indicated he will nominate conservative Judges for the Federal courts, and that is a MAJOR part of the reason why we need a Republican as President.
Regardless of any misgivings I have about him, he is still a better alternative than Hillary.
-
Let me get this straight. You post a childish photo, behave like a child and I'm the kindergartner. I guess that you put you emotionally at the preschool level. You tRumpkins are a laugh a minute. ****sheep****
You go ahead and play to your strengths dearie. :)
-
Trump is under the delusion that he is losing because he's being betrayed by all the icky Pubbie elites. The truth is the average undecided American voter is seeing Trump for who he really is and acting accordingly.
Yes, but the basic premise that has been so *VERY* blatant with Trump and his supporters is that anyone not a WASP and not a Trump supporter... is not an American.
Therefore, all Americans support him because everyone that doesn't isn't American.
Hence the ease they have in resorting to threats of violence and the actual use of violence. They aren't attacking Americans, but foreign enemies occupying US soil.
-
Something we agree on. Yes, they live in an echo chamber, and this is why they do not have a correct understanding of the term "natural born citizen." They listen to what ignorant legal "experts" say about it instead of actually researching it's origins.
It's really simple. Anyone born of US citizens is a natural born citizen, regardless of where.
-
It's sort of funny that Lucianne Goldberg's website is dominated by Trumpsters. Not quite the dictatorship of TOS but still a Trump stronghold. Equally ironic that Lucianne's son, Jonah Goldberg, is one of the biggest Trump critics and accurately predicted the current horror show.
(http://americandigest.org/sidelines/joanhrumpswab.jpg)
-
And the media would have constantly hammered on that note. Also there is case law that does not bode well for Cruz if he was challenged on this point.
No, there isn't. No person has standing to challenge a natural-born citizen dispute, and besides, the Marquis de Lafayette's case proves that anyone can be arbitrarilly declared a natural born citizen. It is a meaningless phrase, twisted and contorted by the alt-right solely to eliminate competition to Trump.
-
If you are pointing out that we have never amended the "natural born citizen" requirement for the Presidency, you are correct.
Self evident, I thought. How can a person meet the requirements set in 1787 through a law passed in 1952 which substantially alters them? Only an amendment to the constitution can change the requirements. You can't do it through a "backdoor" passage of a law.
That's fine for immigration, but it has no effect on PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS. Those can only be changed through amendment, and no, redefining the meaning of words does not work either. That is a just a trick, and one which should not fool people of normal intelligence.
Oh ok. Never mind that Cruz has been determined to be eligible in federal courts what - a half dozen times? Smart people know better.
Tedious.
-
It's really simple. Anyone born of US citizens is a natural born citizen, regardless of where.
That is incorrect. In 1787, *ONLY* the father could transfer citizenship. Women were automatically citizens of the Country of her Husband. This was originally "common law", but was formally codified by statute in the late 1800s.
Women did not acquire the ability to pass on citizenship independent of their husbands until the Cable act of 1922.
-
It would be interesting to go back and collect Ingraham's comments about Slick Willy's sexual escapades. I doubt she was approving.
But I guess that kind of stuff is alright now. Probably just a bunch of loose floozies Trump jumped on. They probably egged him on. Wasn't his fault....just a redblooded American male doing what normal, alpha males do.... sexually assault attractive women.
Trump has not assaulted anyone, he was bragging and said his "groupies" let him do anything he wants to them since he was a "star". That is a far cry from assault.
-
I'd like to pin Davis and his ilk against the wall and ask them what they think of Trump's support of Kelo vs. Connecticut. All the conservative justices opposed it. All the lib justices thought it was fine. I guess it's alright for a wealthy person to kick people off their property to make himself a buck.
If you thought Kelo was bad, and it was, just wait until Hillary puts 3 Marxists on the Supreme court. You ain't seen anything yet.
-
Trump has not assaulted anyone, he was bragging and said his "groupies" let him do anything he wants to them since he was a "star". That is a far cry from assault.
No, that is assault. And remember, "letting him" was only from his perspective. His numerous accusers would beg to differ.
Combine both sides of the picture, and you have assault.
-
No, there isn't. No person has standing to challenge a natural-born citizen dispute,
Hillary would. Unquestionably. Also the various Secretaries of State could challenge it. They aren't required by law to do so, (as we found out in several stupid court cases) but they can do so if they wish.
and besides, the Marquis de Lafayette's case proves that anyone can be arbitrarilly declared a natural born citizen.
The Marquis de Lafayette was not made into a natural born citizen. The statutes to which you are referring say that he and his descendants will be regarded as "natural born citizens."
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6052/6314013776_950ace556d_z.jpg)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6103/6314013808_c297516eff_z.jpg)
In other words, a polite pretense that he is one, but with all the rights of a citizen granted to him.
It is a meaningless phrase, twisted and contorted by the alt-right solely to eliminate competition to Trump.
It is not. This is a topic that I have been strenuously researching since 2008. I believe I have done a better job of it than most, and know a lot of things about it which most "experts" do not know.
-
Trump has not assaulted anyone, he was bragging and said his "groupies" let him do anything he wants to them since he was a "star". That is a far cry from assault.
Not legally.
-
Trump has not assaulted anyone, he was bragging and said his "groupies" let him do anything he wants to them since he was a "star". That is a far cry from assault.
Perhaps. And I think the sexual assault charge may be overblown. That is a crime and we have no evidence Trump has committed an actual crime
I showed his words to some women I know. All of them, when they saw his own words, took it as Trump believing his wealth and status as a star gave him special privileges when it comes to women. Imagine that belief repeated throughout the country and you then begin to understand why Trump will probably lose.
He may have not meant that for public consumption but then he goes on the Howard Stern show and talks the same way. And then continues that mindset through out his campaign
-
No, that is assault. And remember, "letting him" was only from his perspective. His numerous accusers would beg to differ.
Combine both sides of the picture, and you have assault.
There are no numerous accusers only paid operatives of the democrat party whose cases are thrown out of court for being without merit.
-
If deliberate lies worked in that race, why would you not think they would work in another race?
I have no idea if the man is guilty, I only know that the media says he is. In any case, it wrecked his career. The point is, they didn't care if the allegations were true or not. They simply didn't care.
Well it's hard to argue with your statement since it is exactly what Trump and his minions did to Cruz, now isn't it? And what do we have to show for it but but crazyman at the top of our ballot.
-
Oh ok. Never mind that Cruz has been determined to be eligible in federal courts what - a half dozen times? Smart people know better.
Tedious.
They do not know better. They are just certain in their ignorance and in a position to make their ignorance apply.
And no, the question of Cruz has not been determined in any court. It is Obama's status which was challenged in various courts, (some of them Federal, but most of them State courts.) and most often the case was rejected because the courts did not believe ordinary citizens had "standing" to sue for court intervention.
Cruz has nothing more than opinions from various lawyers, but the case of Rogers v Bellei was decided by the Supreme court, and the circumstances of Aldo Mario Bellei are exactly the same circumstances as Ted Cruz.
The court explicitly said that such citizens as were created by statute are subject to the requirements congress places in such naturalization statutes. The court explicitly held that Bellei was a naturalized citizen. So it would too in the case of Ted Cruz, because he was also naturalized by statute.
As a matter of fact, the 1952 law that makes him a citizen *SAYS* that it is a naturalization statute.
It's certainly not a constitutional amendment.
-
This is a topic that I have been strenuously researching since 2008. I believe I have done a better job of it than most, and know a lot of things about it which most "experts" do not know.
The Constitution is vague about the subject. Therefore statute has always been used to make these determinations.
Two honest questions, respectfully offered - has the Supreme Court ruled on whats a 'natural born citizen', and what do you know about the issue, that were missed by the multiple federal courts in which challenges to Cruz's eligibility (as implied by their ruling he is eligible to be on the ballot in their respective states) have been found to have no merit, that would cause him to be found ineligible in the future?
-
Trump has not assaulted anyone, he was bragging and said his "groupies" let him do anything he wants to them since he was a "star". That is a far cry from assault.
@jpsb
Nope, wrong. Firstly, Giuliani admitted on TV that what Trump described was assault. A former prosecutor should know.
Secondly, here are Trump's exact words:
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the bleep. You can do anything."
So he said his habit was to approach women and just kiss them without asking---and they let him do it. He kissed them and they didn't do anything after it happened. Then----you can do it because you're a star, you can do anything, grab them by the p***y. The grabbing and groping is an extension of the kissing. And let's face it, do gropers ask before they grope? Do you think Trump asked anyone, hey, can I grab you down there? Of course he didn't, especially if he didn't ask to kiss them. He's saying he did it, and the women let him get away with it because they were intimidated by his status.
-
The Marquis de Lafayette was not made into a natural born citizen. The statutes to which you are referring say that he and his descendants will be regarded as "natural born citizens." In other words, a polite pretense that he is one, but with all the rights of a citizen granted to him.
There you go again, twisting and contorting what is there into something that isn't. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If one is regarded as a natural born citizen in the eyes of the law, and the Constitution is law, then the person is eligible. Thus, if one can be arbitrarily declared one, it is an inherently meaningless and arbitrary phrase.
You are making a fallacy, assuming a statement and then trying to interpret the evidence in your favor, even if it doesn't fit.
-
I do not believe Trumps "conversion" is genuine, rather I believe it is opportunistic. He wanted to be President (He has always been motivated by ego) and there was no way he was going to be able to elbow Hillary out of the way for the Democrat nomination, so he "converted".
That being said, I don't think he is actually very ideological, and it is my hope that he will adopt policies which his hopefully conservative advisers will suggest. He has already indicated he will nominate conservative Judges for the Federal courts, and that is a MAJOR part of the reason why we need a Republican as President.
Regardless of any misgivings I have about him, he is still a better alternative than Hillary.
I had considered the 'conversion' idea and Trump being opportunistic when he first announced his run for the presidency. I considered he couldn't run under the DEM umbrella because he couldn't compete with Hillary. But if you look at the logic for a moment, if he couldn't compete under the DEM umbrella what makes you think competing under the GOP umbrella the outcome would be any different? Secondly, I disagree that his ego encouraged him to be president. The Clintons encouraged him to run. He's done nothing but hand Hillary the White House since he jumped into the arena. There is a likelihood that his ego has taken over since then and Trump could very well be stabbing them in the back ... Bill didn't look at all pleased with being the focus of adultery and rape again ... as for Hillary ... she seems to be one step ahead of him.
All this is certainly hypothetical. The only way we would really know if Trump is actually even remotely sincere is if he's actually voted in and makes good on his campaign promises....I definitely don't see that happening.
-
They do not know better. They are just certain in their ignorance and in a position to make their ignorance apply.
And no, the question of Cruz has not been determined in any court. It is Obama's status which was challenged in various courts, (some of them Federal, but most of them State courts.) and most often the case was rejected because the courts did not believe ordinary citizens had "standing" to sue for court intervention.
Which is what I have been saying all along: no one can sue in court because of lack of standing. If it were possible, you know one of the candidates would have tried: particularly a lesser-known one who saw an opportunity to knock off a better-funded opponent. Yet no one did, because they knew it would lose.
the case of Rogers v Bellei was decided by the Supreme court, and the circumstances of Aldo Mario Bellei are exactly the same circumstances as Ted Cruz.
Bellei was not running for President, the only circumstance in which there is any distinction. (By the way, the law under which the Bellei case was tried was also repealed, not that it particularly matters in this case.)
Once again, the Trump birthers are deliberately and wrongly conflating natural-born citizenship with 14th Amendment birthright citizenship. That form of permanent, irrevocable citizenship did not even exist at the time the phrase "natural born citizen" was coined. The two concepts are not one and the same.
The court explicitly said that such citizens as were created by statute are subject to the requirements congress places in such naturalization statutes. The court explicitly held that Bellei was a naturalized citizen.
No, it didn't. Bellei was born a citizen, but not under 14th Amendment permanent birthright, and thus could lose his citizenship.
-
The Constitution is vague about the subject.
The Constitution is not vague, it is completely silent. The only word defined in it is "Treason". As Madison said:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
The meaning of "natural born citizen" cannot be discerned from the Constitution, it must be gleaned from where the term came into the vernacular of that era.
Therefore statute has always been used to make these determinations.
There are no statutes defining "natural born citizens", there are only statutes defining the requirement/conditions for naturalized citizens. "Natural citizens" cannot be defined by man made laws, they are the consequence of "natural law" which the founders cited in the Declaration of independence. To the founders, the idea of defining a "natural citizen" would make as much sense as a law defining pi.
Two honest questions, respectfully offered - has the Supreme Court ruled on whats a 'natural born citizen',
They have only touched on the subject, but never offered more than an opinion about what it means. In other words it was "dicta" not a holding. There are several Supreme Court cases in which they make it clear that they believe the Vattel definition applies, the latest being Minor v Happersett. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162) (1875)The Earliest of which I can think, being the case of "The Venus." (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html) (1814)
and what do you know about the issue, that were missed by the multiple federal courts in which challenges to Cruz's eligibility (as implied by their ruling he is eligible to be on the ballot in their respective states) have been found to have no merit, that would cause him to be found ineligible in the future?
Nobody challenged Cruz's eligibility. For the last couple of years I have argued that no one would challenge his eligibility until it was too late for us to pick someone else. Then they would try him in the arena of public opinion. (and probably in court too.)
All of the challenges were to Obama's eligibility, and as for what I know that the Federal courts missed? Quite a lot actually. This is not an issue of law that law schools spend any time on. They simply cite "United States v Wong Kim Ark" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649) as the defining case, and leave the impression that this precedent decides the whole matter.
They do this by equating "citizen" to "natural born citizen" with the assumption being that they mean the exact same thing. They don't.
In any case, the entire controversy regarding Obama (supposing he actually was born within the United States) hinges on whether the founders intended the English Common law understanding to apply, or whether they intended the Emmerich Vattel "Law of Nations" definition to apply.
I have developed what I believe is a compelling argument to tip the scales in the direction of Vattel's "Law of Nations" definition.
I'll trot it out directly.
-
There you go again, twisting and contorting what is there into something that isn't. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If one is regarded as a natural born citizen in the eyes of the law, and the Constitution is law, then the person is eligible.
And I thought only Bill Clinton was unsure of what "is" is. The word "Regarded" does not mean the same thing as "is." You can regard four quarters as as a dollar, but it isn't.
Thus, if one can be arbitrarily declared one, it is an inherently meaningless and arbitrary phrase.
"Deemed and Considered" does not mean "is." The fact is, those declarations by those states were "honorary" and not real. Clearly the Marquis De La Fayette was not even a citizen, let alone a "natural" citizen. They simply granted him all the legal rights of one, though he was not actually a citizen.
In those days, dual citizenship was not comprehended. The Marquis was and remained a Subject of King Louis XVI.
Please make a note of that word Subject. We will come back to it later.
-
And when you're a star they let you do it
consenting female, not an assault. Plus he was just bragging in some private "man talk". The whole thing is ridiculous, there is no there there. Just another attempt by the media and the uniparty to take down Trump.
-
And I thought only Bill Clinton was unsure of what "is" is. The word "Regarded" does not mean the same thing as "is." You can regard four quarters as as a dollar, but it isn't.
In the eyes of the law, four quarters are a dollar. If you owe a $1.00 tax, if you pay with four quarters, it is just as much paid in full as it is if you pay with a one-dollar bill.
You are extrapolating something in that word out of thin air.
"Deemed and Considered" does not mean "is." The fact is, those declarations by those states were "honorary" and not real.
Virginia resident and President Thomas Jefferson would beg to differ, as it was his opinion that the Marquis being declared a natural born citizen in the eyes of Virginia law made him eligible for U.S. offices if he wanted them. (The Marquis had returned to France by this point.)
Clearly the Marquis De La Fayette was not even a citizen, let alone a "natural" citizen. They simply granted him all the legal rights of one, though he was not actually a citizen.
All of the legal rights, including the Presidency should he seek it. It is a distinction of dogma—not of function, not even of semantics, but pure dogma, based on the false assumption that only 14th Amendment Birthright, which did not exist at the time the phrase was coined, is the only natural born citizenship.
In those days, dual citizenship was not comprehended.
That's a dubious assertion.
The Marquis was and remained a Subject of King Louis XVI.
Please make a note of that word Subject. We will come back to it later.
The same King Louis XVI who was, in short order, overthrown, which would have thrown any French subject's citizenship into serious doubt.
-
I had considered the 'conversion' idea and Trump being opportunistic when he first announced his run for the presidency. I considered he couldn't run under the DEM umbrella because he couldn't compete with Hillary. But if you look at the logic for a moment, if he couldn't compete under the DEM umbrella what makes you think competing under the GOP umbrella the outcome would be any different?
Have you not been following the news? (see wikileaks ) The Democrat system is rigged. At least running as a Republican he had half a chance of actually beating a Dem candidate. In the Dem system, none at all.
Secondly, I disagree that his ego encouraged him to be president. The Clintons encouraged him to run.
Both things are true. If you have been keeping up with Trump's doings for the last several decades, you might have noticed that pretty much everything he has ever done in his life was some form of stroking his own ego. "Trump! This!" "Trump! That!" Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump.
Trump is a complete narcissist, and he has arrived at a point in his life where the only honor of any significance which he can possibly bestow on himself is 'President!" It's really just about his over inflated ego.
He's done nothing but hand Hillary the White House since he jumped into the arena. There is a likelihood that his ego has taken over since then and Trump could very well be stabbing them in the back ... Bill didn't look at all pleased with being the focus of adultery and rape again ... as for Hillary ... she seems to be one step ahead of him.
The media are handing it to Hillary. Trump is pissing them off by fighting back. Do not mistake him. He is mostly motivated by his need for adulation, and he is only running to achieve what he regards as the highest social status he can obtain. "Number 1". "Big Dog Daddy." "The Boss."
All this is certainly hypothetical. The only way we would really know if Trump is actually even remotely sincere is if he's actually voted in and makes good on his campaign promises....I definitely don't see that happening.
I do, because it would lower his perceived social status if he is seen as reneging on his promises. His enemies will say "Ah HA! " and his Friends will lose respect for him.
The Wall he will definitely build. He's invested too much of his own credibility in that promise. I *think* he will honor his commitment to appoint conservative judges. He is certainly more likely to do it than is Hillary.
But it really is a crap shoot on the one hand, (Trump) and jumping into the fire on the other. (Hillary)
-
Did we not just watch the same primary election? Did you not see the media claiming he Lied about Ben Carson stopping his campaign? Did you not see the media repeating the allegations that Cruz engaged in Adultery?
It doesn't matter if he is innocent, the media will make crap up. Remember the accusations that George HW Bush had an affair? Remember the accusations that McCain had an affair? Remember the headlines that Romney put a dog on his car roof, and that he once cut the hair of a kid in school?
The media will spread lies, and if they can't find any, they will create them. They already hated Cruz for his filibuster of the government, and they were going to portray him as that evil Republican that shut down the government because he hates poor people.
Do not think that being squeaky clean is any defense against them. They will force you to deny false claims all day and every day so long as they can get away with it.
You are right about the media (for the most part) but wrong about the people. People know about media bias and they are not controlled by it. Most people can see past it.
-
Yes he is and he is not a natural born citizen of these United States.
May I please violate the forum rules just this once and call you idiot? Moderator? Moderator?
-
@DiogenesLamp
And?
I've forgotten how to block people. I desperately need to no longer see posts from DiogenesLamp. I saw plenty of him on TOS and he is not only excessively wordy but he won't stop talking. Can you tell me how?
-
May I please violate the forum rules just this once and call you idiot?
:beer:
-
I've forgotten how to block people. I desperately need to no longer see posts from DiogenesLamp. I saw plenty of him on TOS and he is not only excessively wordy but he won't stop talking. Can you tell me how?
Click Modify Profile. Scroll down to Block/Ignore. Add the bastard to your list.
-
Click Modify Profile. Scroll down to Block/Ignore. Add the bastard to your list.
Thank you!!! Thank God and Greyhound, he's gone !!!
-
@jpsb
Nope, wrong. Firstly, Giuliani admitted on TV that what Trump described was assault. A former prosecutor should know.
Secondly, here are Trump's exact words:
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the bleep. You can do anything."
So he said his habit was to approach women and just kiss them without asking---and they let him do it. He kissed them and they didn't do anything after it happened. Then----you can do it because you're a star, you can do anything, grab them by the p***y. The grabbing and groping is an extension of the kissing. And let's face it, do gropers ask before they grope? Do you think Trump asked anyone, hey, can I grab you down there? Of course he didn't, especially if he didn't ask to kiss them. He's saying he did it, and the women let him get away with it because they were intimidated by his status.
There is no way for Trump lackeys to weasel out of it, hard as they may be trying.
Trump sexually assaulted every single woman that this happened to.
The only question is, how many different women did he molest in his life?
How many women did he harm, humiliate and shame just because he had the power and money to get away with it?
@CatherineofAragon
-
And no, the question of Cruz has not been determined in any court.
There plenty of states that studied the issue and gave Ted a green light
-
Thank you!!! Thank God and Greyhound, he's gone !!!
One of the most annoying, arrogant Trumplovers ever to appear on this forum.
Glad you only see his remains. :beer:
(It's amazing how much he spams, isn't it? Kinda like he's suffering from diarrhea of the fingers).
-
There is no way for Trump lackeys to weasel out of it, hard as they may be trying.
Trump sexually assaulted every single woman that this happened to.
What part of consent do you not understand?
con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
verb
1.
give permission for something to happen.
-
ABC News PoliticsVerified account
@ABCPolitics
.@realDonaldTrump tells supporters in Florida to vote on "November 28."
-
ABC News PoliticsVerified account
@ABCPolitics
.@realDonaldTrump tells supporters in Florida to vote on "November 28."
He's down the road in Panama City. It is the only part of FL he might win. Poor sap thinks FL is in play.
-
He's down the road in Panama City. It is the only part of FL he might win. Poor sap thinks FL is in play.
The more things change...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/100-Funny-Pictures/Electile-Dysfunction.htm#step-heading (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/100-Funny-Pictures/Electile-Dysfunction.htm#step-heading)
-
The more things change...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/100-Funny-Pictures/Electile-Dysfunction.htm#step-heading (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/100-Funny-Pictures/Electile-Dysfunction.htm#step-heading)
:nometalk:
-
ABC News PoliticsVerified account
@ABCPolitics
.@realDonaldTrump tells supporters in Florida to vote on "November 28."
I fully agree.
Furthermore, as their orange god hath spoken, they may not disobey his diktats. They must not vote on November 8th, for that would render their lord's words a falsehood. And the punishment for such apotasy is to be 'hunted down with dogs'.
-
What part of consent do you not understand?
con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
verb
1.
give permission for something to happen.
What part of permission do you fail to understand?
I could come over to your place, grope and kiss your wife and, if the alternative presented to her was to destroy your life or career, she'd consent. Which, by your reasoning, absolves me of any wrong doing at all.
-
No, that is assault. And remember, "letting him" was only from his perspective. His numerous accusers would beg to differ.
Combine both sides of the picture, and you have assault.
This is not something that can really be determined in isolation from the actual conduct. There are layers of subtlety, non-verbal communication, degrees of touching, etc. that go on. There are some women who lust after powerful men, and will gladly hop in the sack with them because of that power. If Trump is referring to that, then it may not be actual assault. It would be difficult to make that determination without knowing more about the particular incidents where it happened.
And while a lot of folks like to throw the "assault" label on as a technical legal definition applicable to any unwanted touching, that usage of the word can be misleading. Back in my younger days, I had my butt and various other body parts touched without permission by women (sometimes just a touch inebriated) who used it as kind of a heavy come-on. The idea of claiming "assault" was absurd -- it was generally "no thanks", or "not interested". Sometimes it took more than one turn-down before they got the message. Then again, it wasn't always turned down.
Obviously that things can go farther than that, so I'm not saying that what Trump did was "only" boorish and not really assault. I'm simply saying that these kind of things really need to be looked at in a lot more detail to get an accurate handle on what went on.
-
Ingraham is now joining Katrina P--- in encouraging Trumpturds not to vote down-ballot.
I said from the start that Trump would lead his idiot followers to voting Democrat and it sure looks like it will happen for all intents and purposes. Trump is the best weapon Hillary could have launched to become President.
-
Ingraham is now joining Katrina P--- in encouraging Trumpturds not to vote down-ballot.
I'm just going to point out that there also exists some non-Trump supporters who peddle the argument that the GOP Congress is "useless anyway", and that it doesn't make a difference if we elect Republicans or not down-ticket because they won't stand up to Hillary anyway. It's the "the GOP gave Obama everything he wanted" crowd, and they're actually pulling in the same direction as those Trumpists.
-
The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?
Are we going to throw men in jail for making passes at women? Too many here are letting their dislike of Trump making them sound like left wing University professors.
I showed several women Trump's words to guage how they felt. Their opinion was Trump believed that his fame and wealth entitled him to certain privileges and he used the women as groupies. None thought it was assault
-
What part of consent do you not understand?
con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
verb
1.
give permission for something to happen.
What part of "Donald Trump is a predator and a liar" don't you understand?
Believing a man who cheats on every wife and brags about it, who brags about looking at naked beauty pageant contestants because who can stop him? who brags about kissing and grabbing women because he's rich and famous and they "let him" is telling the truth about "consent" is as naïve and stupid as a human being can be.
When a rich, powerful man grabs your daughter by the crotch and brags that she "consented" you get back to us, OK?
You are absolutely CLUELESS about sexual predators and assault if you actually believe these women consented to being molested just because the molester claims they "consented."
Fortunately, there are only a few of you on this forum, but the argument you guys are making to defend Trump reveals that you are either dumber than a box of rocks, or as amoral as Trump is.
My guess is the former, because there are very few men as debauched as he is and I doubt there are 5 of you posting on this forum.
-
The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?
Are we going to throw men in jail for making passes at women? Too many here are letting their dislike of Trump making them sound like left wing University professors.
I showed several women Trump's words to guage how they felt. Their opinion was Trump believed that his fame and wealth entitled him to certain privileges and he used the women as groupies. None thought it was assault
That's the subtlety that just gets lost when this stuff is reduced to a few words on a page, or in a casual statement. We simply don't know the full context.
-
The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?
So the women who report having to wrestle their way out of his tiny hands and yell at him to stop are consenting?
-
This is not something that can really be determined in isolation from the actual conduct. There are layers of subtlety, non-verbal communication, degrees of touching, etc. that go on. There are some women who lust after powerful men, and will gladly hop in the sack with them because of that power. If Trump is referring to that, then it may not be actual assault. It would be difficult to make that determination without knowing more about the particular incidents where it happened.
And while a lot of folks like to throw the "assault" label on as a technical legal definition applicable to any unwanted touching, that usage of the word can be misleading. Back in my younger days, I had my butt and various other body parts touched without permission by women (sometimes just a touch inebriated) who used it as kind of a heavy come-on. The idea of claiming "assault" was absurd -- it was generally "no thanks", or "not interested". Sometimes it took more than one turn-down before they got the message. Then again, it wasn't always turned down.
Obviously that things can go farther than that, so I'm not saying that what Trump did was "only" boorish and not really assault. I'm simply saying that these kind of things really need to be looked at in a lot more detail to get an accurate handle on what went on.
An awful lot gets ignored as not worthy of complaint. Someone is out of line, you put them back in line, end of story. In many cases, it's just not worth complaining about--but we're guys, and yes, Virginia, there is a double standard there.
But, once again, we're seeing a small rock sticking out of an ocean. That little chunk of lithic material above sea level isn't floating, it isn't something isolated, rather it has a lot beneath it holding it up.
The idea that because he is somebody he can conduct himself in such a fashion as to ignore the patent lack of desire some women may have for his advances is the foundation that small rock sits on. Whether that be callous disregard for other people, objectification, hubris on his part, or the idea that somehow money and a little fame (often seen as equating to power) grant him immunity from the rules--whether those be just common decency or the Law--a lot unseen underlies his behaviour.
You decide whether that is just a rare instance of misguided testosterone, like a rock floating in the ocean, or the tip of a seamount, just the momentary manifestation of a much deeper syndrome of behaviour. If the latter, then it bespeaks an attitude that the ordinary rules don't apply to him as a result of his wealth or fame or power, some form of jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur.
As for assault, well, one possible metric is simple enough to apply. If the average guy did what he claimed he did to whom he did it to, would he be facing charges? If you or I walked in on Miss USA pageant contestants changing clothes? Laid nude in their hotel beds waiting for them? Groped married women while 'shopping for furniture'? What are the chances we would be arrested for such behaviour?
If he only 'got away with it' because of wealth, fame, or 'power', that bespeaks a serious tendency to abuse that power, if not the feeling that he is entitled to do so. That's the mountain that puts the little rock above the waves. We know what Hillary will do with such an attitude. After all, 'rules are for little people'. Unfortunately, supporting that mentality from the allegedly Conservative end of the political spectrum would leave no place at the table for the Rule of Law.
-
That's the subtlety that just gets lost when this stuff is reduced to a few words on a page, or in a casual statement. We simply don't know the full context.
Maj. Bill ............... we DO know the context that Donald Trump is vain, arrogant, disrespects women, abuses his wealth and power, and is a vulgar liar. We DO know that he has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women.
And we DO know that he lies about pretty much everything.
What kind of naivte does it take to actually believe it when he claims the women he groped and molested "consented?"
I know you're trying to be fair here, but sometimes working so hard to do so makes you miss the obvious.
Would you be OK with it if a rich, powerful man groped your daughter and he said she "consented?"
That's the excuse sexual predators make ALL the time. That she "wanted it."
Put it in context of his character (or lack thereof) on display throughout his life, and you'll see that this is just one more evidence that he is a reprobate and a serial liar.
-
Ingraham is now joining Katrina P--- in encouraging Trumpturds not to vote down-ballot.
I said from the start that Trump would lead his idiot followers to voting Democrat and it sure looks like it will happen for all intents and purposes. Trump is the best weapon Hillary could have launched to become President.
It seems the basic understanding of civics is lacking on both sides....
Here is a refresher...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
-
So the women who report having to wrestle their way out of his tiny hands and yell at him to stop are consenting?
To a Trump lover, THEY are the liars and HE is telling the truth.
The man (using the term loosely) is a serial offender. He is..... Just. Like. Clinton.
And NONE of these people working so hard to defend Trump thought that it was OK for Clinton to abuse women.
-
To a Trump lover, THEY are the liars and HE is telling the truth.
The man (using the term loosely) is a serial offender. He is..... Just. Like. Clinton.
And NONE of these people working so hard to defend Trump thought that it was OK for Clinton to abuse women.
I said this before, we can't complain about Bill's behavior since a lot of people are defending Trump's behavior.
-
It's more that Trump hates America. The only glove he laid on her was on her rotund bottom when he helped push up her standing. If you wanna effectively go after her for sex issues, it helps to not have a shipping container full of ones own.
With probably more to follow. Are there other shoes out there, waiting to fall? Anyone surprised if there are?
-
Ingraham is now joining Katrina P--- in encouraging Trumpturds not to vote down-ballot.
I said from the start that Trump would lead his idiot followers to voting Democrat and it sure looks like it will happen for all intents and purposes. Trump is the best weapon Hillary could have launched to become President.
Almost makes you wonder if that wasn't the plan all along?
-
So the women who report having to wrestle their way out of his tiny hands and yell at him to stop are consenting?
If Donald Trump makes a pass at them and they say no but he continues or ignores them that then can become assault. From his statement, his own words , it sounds to me that he is using his fame and wealth to his advantage. If they let him, as what he says in his statement, then that's not assault .
Being a pig and being boorish and bombastic is not a crime
-
Maj. Bill ............... we DO know the context that Donald Trump is vain, arrogant, disrespects women, abuses his wealth and power, and is a vulgar liar.
That doesn't mean that these particular actions were what people would normally classify as an "assault", other than in the most strict legal definition of a touching without consent. Just because someone is a scumbag in general does not make them guilty of every accusation.
What kind of naivte does it take to actually believe it when he claims the women he groped and molested "consented?"
Women grabs guys butt in a bar, without obtaining consent. Assault?
I know you're trying to be fair here, but sometimes working so hard to do so makes you miss the obvious.
Well, not exactly -- I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle. I've handled sexual harassment cases in the high double digits, and the subtleties of actual human interactions are different than how they are portrayed when discussed in the abstract. The difference between harassment and flirting can be nothing more than whether or not the woman actually liked the guy. There are flirtatious glances that are "I think that cute guy is checking me out" and then there's "Ew, that creep keeps staring at me." Every unsuccessful pass is not sexual assault.
Generally, I think it should come down to whether the guy took "no" for an answer, more so than the initial pass. If he persists in making physical contact after being given a "no", that's something different. The truth is there are a thousand bars in this country where what Trump described happens on a nightly basis. It can certainly be creepy when it is unwanted, but at the same time, it doesn't always end up as unwanted, and that seems to have been Trump's point. Doesn't mean it wasn't sleazy, but I think the "sexual assault!" cry of the lynch mob may be overblown.
That's is an issue separate from other valid criticisms of his character otherwise.
-
As for assault, well, one possible metric is simple enough to apply. If the average guy did what he claimed he did to whom he did it to, would he be facing charges? If you or I walked in on Miss USA pageant contestants changing clothes? Laid nude in their hotel beds waiting for them?
Well, that's a tough metric because he's involved with those pageants, and we're not. The former - no. The latter - yuck. Although...
Hell, once while summer interning for a major law firm, I came home to a party my roommates were throwing in our house. Just came back from working out, so I went upstairs to take a shower. Literally face with the exact same situation.
I should add that this was not someone with whom I'd had any prior relationship. But she clearly knew it was my room, and went in there deliberately knowing I'd be back. Cops?
Groped married women while 'shopping for furniture'? What are the chances we would be arrested for such behaviour?
Depends if the woman called a cop, or just brushed it off. Hitting on married women is scummy, but I don't think it counts as a disqualifier for office.
-
What part of consent do you not understand?
con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
verb
1.
give permission for something to happen.
@jpsb
Where did you read that any of the women consented?
-
All of the legal rights, including the Presidency should he seek it.
If you think a state can pass a law to undo a requirement of the Presidency, than it is pointless to argue with you further on that point.
The Marquis was not born in Virginia. The Marquis was not born to an American. He cannot be born twice. Since he was already born a Subject of King Louis XVI, He cannot be born as anything else.
You accuse me of playing word games, but I am speaking the plain truth. I am speaking reality, not trying to force reality to confirm to words games such as you are seemingly insisting upon.
It is a distinction of dogma—not of function, not even of semantics, but pure dogma, based on the false assumption that only 14th Amendment Birthright, which did not exist at the time the phrase was coined, is the only natural born citizenship.
The 14th amendment is *NOT* "natural citizenship." Even the Supreme Court explicitly said it wasn't. It is statutory citizenship. Anyone made a citizen by the action of the 14th amendment is not a natural citizen, but is instead a citizen by statute. (man made law.)
The founders believed that only "the laws of Nature or Nature's God", could make natural citizens. Congress has the power of "naturalization", which means to make "like natural." i.e. effectively Adoption.
Naturalized citizens are adopted citizens, they are not "natural" citizens. Their descendants are natural citizens, but naturalized citizens are not.
That's a dubious assertion.
The same King Louis XVI who was, in short order, overthrown, which would have thrown any French subject's citizenship into serious doubt.
The French Revolution is the time in which France transitioned from having Subjects to having "Citizens." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIQSEq6tEVs)
Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons! Marchons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!
While it was a Monarchy, it had Subjects. When it became a Republic, it had "Citizens." At the time, it was only the third Nation in the World that had "Citizens." All the rest used the term "Subjects."
-
I've forgotten how to block people. I desperately need to no longer see posts from DiogenesLamp. I saw plenty of him on TOS and he is not only excessively wordy but he won't stop talking. Can you tell me how?
(http://www.trainingforwarriors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/28-fingers-in-ears.jpg)
Yes, that's an adult way of handling unpleasant opinions/facts.
-
I said this before, we can't complain about Bill's behavior since a lot of people are defending Trump's behavior.
No we can't.
After all, the complaints against Clinton were allegations made by women, which he denied.
Trump, like Clinton has abused his position of power to molest women.
Any defense of this cretin needs to be examined based on what we already know of him.
And what we know of him is that he is a predator exactly as Bill Clinton is a predator.
-
The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?
Are we going to throw men in jail for making passes at women? Too many here are letting their dislike of Trump making them sound like left wing University professors.
I showed several women Trump's words to guage how they felt. Their opinion was Trump believed that his fame and wealth entitled him to certain privileges and he used the women as groupies. None thought it was assault
@LMAO
Regardless of what those women said, no---we are not throwing around the word assault too lightly.
Rudy Giuliani admitted that what Trump described is assault. As a former prosecutor, he should know.
Aside from that, however, Trump's words tell the whole story.
He said that he walks up to women and kisses them without permission. Then he said you can do anything, including grabbing them by the p***y.
Grabbing the genitals is clearly an extension of what he does without permission. Kissing---then grabbing/groping.
Look, let's use a little common sense here. If the guy just approaches women and kisses them, do you think he asks, "Hey, can I grab you down there?" Have you ever in your life heard of a groper who asks permission from his targets?
-
That doesn't mean that these particular actions were what people would normally classify as an "assault", other than in the most strict legal definition of a touching without consent. Just because someone is a scumbag in general does not make them guilty of every accusation.
Women grabs guys butt in a bar, without obtaining consent. Assault?
Well, not exactly -- I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle. I've handled sexual harassment cases in the high double digits, and the subtleties of actual human interactions are different than how they are portrayed when discussed in the abstract. The difference between harassment and flirting can be nothing more than whether or not the woman actually liked the guy. There are flirtatious glances that are "I think that cute guy is checking me out" and then there's "Ew, that creep keeps staring at me." Every unsuccessful pass is not sexual assault.
Big difference between "I think that guy is checking me out." and "Holy sh*T! He grabbed my crotch!"
There's making a pass, and making contact.
Generally, I think it should come down to whether the guy took "no" for an answer, more so than the initial pass. If he persists in making physical contact after being given a "no", that's something different. The truth is there are a thousand bars in this country where what Trump described happens on a nightly basis. It can certainly be creepy when it is unwanted, but at the same time, it doesn't always end up as unwanted, and that seems to have been Trump's point. Doesn't mean it wasn't sleazy, but I think the "sexual assault!" cry of the lynch mob may be overblown.
That's is an issue separate from other valid criticisms of his character otherwise.
You keep referring to being groped in a bar. That is, depending on the bar, an environment where a combination of lowered inhibitions and a meat market attitude will lead to such encounters, and in some instances, patrons would be disappointed to not have such.
That isn't furniture shopping, nor participating in a pageant.
But she said no...
She's just playing hard to get
But she pushed him away...
She's just feisty and seeing if he really wants to
But she's fighting him
Some women like it rough. It gets their juices going...
There is some twisted justification for every breach of etiquette.
...right down to 'She's a whore or she wouldn't dress that way. She was asking for it.' (How Islamic).
Boundaries, Major. If we can't let a woman declare hers inviolate, how are we going to defend a Country?
-
There plenty of states that studied the issue and gave Ted a green light
First of all, no one "studied" it. They simply regurgitate the crap that most of them learned in law school, which pretty much does not include "studying" anything beyond Wong Kim Ark.
Second of all, they didn't make any Judicial finding, those that even addressed it at all said they would not interfere.
This ignores the point that some Hillary Friendly states might not be so accommodating. All it takes is one Secretary of State to challenge his status and it ends up in Court. Have you been keeping up with what that New York Attorney General has tried to do to Trump?
That Cruz would likely win in our deliberately ignorant courts does not change the fact that the Media and his Democrat Opponents (same thing) would incessantly question his "natural" status, and thereby wear down his qualifications in the court of public opinion.
It is a low cost tactic on their part, and I do not doubt they would have done it, and I very much think it might have worked.
-
That doesn't mean that these particular actions were what people would normally classify as an "assault", other than in the most strict legal definition of a touching without consent. Just because someone is a scumbag in general does not make them guilty of every accusation.
But this guy BRAGGED about what he did. He's a scumbag who stated outright that he molested women just because he had the power to do so. THAT is assault.
Women grabs guys butt in a bar, without obtaining consent. Assault?
Might be. But it's also different than grabbing his genitals, is it not? That's what Trump did. It's MUCH different than if he had patted her on the back end. It would still be sleazy and unwanted, but not necessarily assault. Grabbing her genitals is assault, whether the perp claims the women "consented" or not.
Well, not exactly -- I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle. I've handled sexual harassment cases in the high double digits, and the subtleties of actual human interactions are different than how they are portrayed when discussed in the abstract. The difference between harassment and flirting can be nothing more than whether or not the woman actually liked the guy. There are flirtatious glances that are "I think that cute guy is checking me out" and then there's "Ew, that creep keeps staring at me." Every unsuccessful pass is not sexual assault.
Generally, I think it should come down to whether the guy took "no" for an answer, more so than the initial pass. If he persists in making physical contact after being given a "no", that's something different. The truth is there are a thousand bars in this country where what Trump described happens on a nightly basis. It can certainly be creepy when it is unwanted, but at the same time, it doesn't always end up as unwanted, and that seems to have been Trump's point. Doesn't mean it wasn't sleazy, but I think the "sexual assault!" cry of the lynch mob may be overblown.
That's is an issue separate from other valid criticisms of his character otherwise.
Again, the scenarios you are describing are different from the actual confession he made that he grabbed women's private parts. You can argue that "sexual harassment" is overdone and be right, but to argue that molesting women is not a problem, and the crime in the eye of the beholder is just not a valid defense of Donald Trump.
He molested women. And if you think that they liked it, and that his fundamental dishonesty isn't an issue here, you are working against the victims of his abuse.
I hope many of these women come forward, now that the fear factor of his power over them is diminished, and press charges against him.
He needs to be brought to justice over this.
Bill Clinton got away with his crimes. I pray Donald Trump doesn't. His victims deserve better.
-
(http://www.trainingforwarriors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/28-fingers-in-ears.jpg)
Yes, that's an adult way of handling unpleasant opinions/facts.
Putting the 12 year old on IGNORE.
One can only take so much childishness and lack of truthfulness and remain calm.
Yikes. **nononono*
-
That Cruz would likely win in our deliberately ignorant courts does not change the fact that the Media and his Democrat Opponents (same thing) would incessantly question his "natural" status, and thereby wear down his qualifications in the court of public opinion.
It is a low cost tactic on their part, and I do not doubt they would have done it, and I very much think it might have worked.
Like it worked with the Kenyan? No standing, in any court. he was even reelected.
I'm not so sure.
-
One of the most annoying, arrogant Trumplovers ever to appear on this forum.
You say you are "Mensa" smart, yet you keep misrepresenting me even though I have explicitly clarified this point for you at least once. Once again, I am not a Trump lover, I am merely someone who is resigned to Trump as a tool to beat Hillary, of whom I am a very active and long term hater.
I get it that you object to my speech. We are all censorious little Dictators at heart, but most of us have developed the maturity to deal with hearing things we don't like.
-
The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?
Are we going to throw men in jail for making passes at women? Too many here are letting their dislike of Trump making them sound like left wing University professors.
I showed several women Trump's words to guage how they felt. Their opinion was Trump believed that his fame and wealth entitled him to certain privileges and he used the women as groupies. None thought it was assault
@LMAO
I didn't respond to the rest of your post, sorry.
You know, over the past few days, I've been dealing with an impulse to give in to anger at the way conservative men are defending Trump's actions and attempting to minimize them. So much for the idea of rightwing men thinking women should be protected and treated like ladies. Chalk up another eye-opening, unpleasant revelation to 2016.
I don't have to be a liberal feminist to demand decent treatment from men. I demand it, and I don't apologize for it. I don't mind a bit when a man makes a pass at me. I take it as a compliment. What Trump described is entirely different. It is sexual assault.
As a married woman, I smile and politely discourage a man who shows interest in me. But as I've said elsewhere, if some guy walked up and kissed me, he would receive a hard slap. If he grabbed the part of my body Trump grabs, he'd walk away with blood running down his face and maybe minus an eye.
-
I'm just going to point out that there also exists some non-Trump supporters who peddle the argument that the GOP Congress is "useless anyway", and that it doesn't make a difference if we elect Republicans or not down-ticket because they won't stand up to Hillary anyway. It's the "the GOP gave Obama everything he wanted" crowd, and they're actually pulling in the same direction as those Trumpists.
I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal to this point. In what significant manner did they try to stand up to Obama? Didn't he spend 5 Trillion dollars?
How much was on their watch?
-
That Cruz would likely win in our deliberately ignorant courts does not change the fact that the Media and his Democrat Opponents (same thing) would incessantly question his "natural" status, and thereby wear down his qualifications in the court of public opinion.
It is a low cost tactic on their part, and I do not doubt they would have done it, and I very much think it might have worked.
To which I say 'big deal'.
I'll take the opportunity to put the administration of a constitutionalist in the White House for a change in a heartbeat. WELL worth the risk.
-
Putting the 12 year old on IGNORE.
One can only take so much childishness and lack of truthfulness and remain calm.
Yikes. **nononono*
Just as well, you weren't listening anyways. You and a lot of other people have no interest in hearing anything but your own words echoed back at you.
-
Like it worked with the Kenyan? No standing, in any court. he was even reelected.
Secretary of States had standing. They refused to assert it. Nobody wanted to be perceived as a "RACIST" for challenging the first "Black" Presidential Candidate that had a good chance of winning.
John McCain had standing to do so as well , but he had bigger "natural born citizen" issues than did Obama. He was born in Panama. (At a US Naval Base, and to American Parents) The public perception is that he had less of a claim to being a "natural born citizen" than did Obama, so McCain dared not challenge Obama on this point or the Media would have utterly destroyed him.
The problem was, no ordinary "citizens" had standing. There were people with standing, but they would not do anything.
I'm not so sure.
You are ignoring the role of the media in tearing down our candidates and in boosting Democrat candidates. If you think they would have treated Ted Cruz with the kids gloves they used on Obama, you are very much mistaken. They would have attacked Ted Cruz with this, and even if he had ultimately won in court, they would have done much damage in the court of public opinion.
Obama gets a pass by the media. Ted Cruz would have drawn their wrath and scrutiny.
-
To which I say 'big deal'.
I'll take the opportunity to put the administration of a constitutionalist in the White House for a change in a heartbeat. WELL worth the risk.
I was willing to take that risk as well, but I had no illusions as to what would be the oppositions likely strategy. And by opposition, I include the media as Democrat operatives.
I initially thought Cruz would triumph anyway, but after I see how the media have pulled out all the stops and thrown to the winds any pretense of objectivity, I now think Cruz would having a harder time than is Trump.
-
I've forgotten how to block people. I desperately need to no longer see posts from DiogenesLamp. I saw plenty of him on TOS and he is not only excessively wordy but he won't stop talking. Can you tell me how?
I can't tell you by memory, but I've done it before and it's sooooo worth the trouble. There's a certain feline whose posts are as useless as tits on a boar hog, so I finally employed the ignore feature. But that person is not nearly as loquacious as @DiogenesLamp. It's curious that so many of the Trumpettes exhibit the traits of their orange god, not the least of which is diarrhea of the mouth. Jabber, jabber, blabber, prattle, prattle, prattle, blab, blab, blabber, ad nauseum, yet actually saying precious little. Making DL's posts even more pesky is the overuse of graphics.
When I put that feline poster on ignore, I just went into my profile and clicked around until I figured out how to set it to ignore. The outcome has been such a plus, I'm going to follow your lead regarding DL. BTW, be prepared to not be able to ignore this person completely since there will me those who will quote his/her posts in order to respond to them. In spite of that, it really does make navigating the threads more productive.
@Emjay
-
@jpsb
Where did you read that any of the women consented?
That was implied, "they let me do it". First I am tried of talking about this, Trump was joking and bragging in a private "man talk" conservation. There is no evidence that he ever did any of the things he was bragging he could do.
Much more important to me is stopping the flow of millions of illegals into the USA.
Much more important to me stopping the flow of hundreds of thousands of unvetted Islamists "refugees" into the USA.
Much more important to me is stopping a Hillary amnesty that gives the vote to tens of millions of Marxists.
Much more important to me is securing our southern border and enforcing our immigration laws.
Much more important to me is renegotiating bad trade deals that have sent our jobs and our wealth over seas.
Much more important to me is stopping our involvement in these useless unwinable nation building wars.
Much more important to me is working with Russia to wipe out ISIS instead of arming and training ISIS like this administration (Hillary) is doing.
-
@Emjay
Found it! Here are the steps:
Click on profile
Look on left side under “Modify Profile”
Click on “Edit Ignore List”
Enter first few letters of the name
Click on the name when it pops up
Click OK
Done!
-
I was willing to take that risk as well, but I had no illusions as to what would be the oppositions likely strategy. And by opposition, I include the media as Democrat operatives.
I initially thought Cruz would triumph anyway, but after I see how the media have pulled out all the stops and thrown to the winds any pretense of objectivity, I now think Cruz would having a harder time than is Trump.
Aside from the 'birther' issue (which America had already heard once going the other way), all the other dirt that could be manufactured had been thrown at Cruz by the Trump people. Had Trump not been in the race, I think Cruz would have won handily, despite the media. Polls showed him beating Hillary, and Cruz would have gone after her, not other Republicans.
-
Twenty-six and a half days before the election, multiple post second debate polls have Hillary up somewhere between 8 and 9 points over Trump.
No candidate in the modern era of polling has ever climbed back from more than 4 points behind over the final month of the campaign to win the presidency.
I hope that the idea of Trump "laying a glove" on Hillary is worth the sight of Hillary wearing the championship belt for the next four years for these people.
-
I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal to this point. In what significant manner did they try to stand up to Obama? Didn't he spend 5 Trillion dollars?
Okay, but let's start off by setting the goalposts in the correct place. The argument to which I was responding was that there is no value in electing Republicans down-ticket because the GOP Congress "gave Obama everything he wanted." I mention that because it is almost a ridiculously low bar to meet, and I'm just the guy to meet a really low bar.
So, I listed some of the major things Obama wanted that Congress did not give him:
1) They did not confirm Garland. That likely saved both Citizens United and Heller. Those two issues alone are huge. It is also highly relevant because of the next two points:
2) Congress refused to modify the Clean Air Act as he requested, so he was forced to try to implement his global warming agenda via regulatory action/executive order. He was stopped by the courts.
3) They refused to pass his immigration bill, so he was forced to try to get legal status for millions of illegals via regulatory/executive order. Again, he was shot down by the courts. And, a rehearing on this by the Supreme Court was just denied. Had Garland been confirmed, the rehearing likely would have been granted, and Obama's executive actions would have been allowed to proceed. That would have been game over on immigration.
4) They refused to pass amendments he wanted to the Affordable Care Act, and in fact passed legislation barring the use of federal funds to backstop insurance companies that were losing money in the exchanges. The result of those failed amendments and legislation has been to force ObamaCare into the death spiral.
Again, I want to emphasize that considering where the goalposts were set - "there is no value in electing Republicans" - pointing out times where they failed to stop Obama doesn't advance the ball on the other side. Someone literally must show that they caved on everything, which cannot be done.
-
I initially thought Cruz would triumph anyway, but after I see how the media have pulled out all the stops and thrown to the winds any pretense of objectivity, I now think Cruz would having a harder time than is Trump.
No doubt they'd give Cruz a harder time.
They'd have to - not only would Cruz constitute a real threat to their ideological worldview, Trump was always going to be easy pickin's.
-
I can't tell you by memory, but I've done it before and it's sooooo worth the trouble. There's a certain feline whose posts are as useless as tits on a boar hog, so I finally employed the ignore feature. But that person is not nearly as loquacious as @DiogenesLamp. It's curious that so many of the Trumpettes exhibit the traits of their orange god, not the least of which is diarrhea of the mouth. Jabber, jabber, blabber, prattle, prattle, prattle, blab, blab, blabber, ad nauseum, yet actually saying precious little. Making DL's posts even more pesky is the overuse of graphics.
When I put that feline poster on ignore, I just went into my profile and clicked around until I figured out how to set it to ignore. The outcome has been such a plus, I'm going to follow your lead regarding DL. BTW, be prepared to not be able to ignore this person completely since there will me those who will quote his/her posts in order to respond to them. In spite of that, it really does make navigating the threads more productive.
@Emjay
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JLu8g0FVPTg/hqdefault.jpg)
:)
-
If you think a state can pass a law to undo a requirement of the Presidency, than it is pointless to argue with you further on that point.
You accuse me of playing word games, but I am speaking the plain truth. I am speaking reality, not trying to force reality to confirm to words games such as you are seemingly insisting upon.
The bestowment in question was in 1784, three years before the Constitution was written (the states were still operating under the Articles of Confederation at the time, which gave them far greater control over their own affairs). It is the most prominent example of the use of "natural born citizen" in law from the era.
The 14th amendment is *NOT* "natural citizenship." Even the Supreme Court explicitly said it wasn't. It is statutory citizenship. Anyone made a citizen by the action of the 14th amendment is not a natural citizen, but is instead a citizen by statute. (man made law.)
In other words, no one is a natural born citizen under that definition.
The founders believed that only "the laws of Nature or Nature's God", could make natural citizens. Congress has the power of "naturalization", which means to make "like natural." i.e. effectively Adoption.
Naturalized citizens are adopted citizens, they are not "natural" citizens. Their descendants are natural citizens, but naturalized citizens are not.
The Founders so disagreed on what the nature of God was (some were devout Christians, others deists) that they expressly barred religious tests and passed the Bill of Rights.
Natural Law is not accepted in court. See Lawrence v. Texas, Obergfell v. Hodges for prime examples.
-
He molested women. And if you think that they liked it, and that his fundamental dishonesty isn't an issue here, you are working against the victims of his abuse.
No, I'm not saying that they liked it. It is clear that some of his passes were shot down in flames. What I'm saying is that a crude pass is different from an assault in the face of a "no".
And if you think he should be brought to justice over this, fine. Let someone file an assault charge.
-
I didn't respond to the rest of your post, sorry.
You know, over the past few days, I've been dealing with an impulse to give in to anger at the way conservative men are defending Trump's actions and attempting to minimize them. So much for the idea of rightwing men thinking women should be protected and treated like ladies. Chalk up another eye-opening, unpleasant revelation to 2016.
I don't have to be a liberal feminist to demand decent treatment from men. I demand it, and I don't apologize for it. I don't mind a bit when a man makes a pass at me. I take it as a compliment. What Trump described is entirely different. It is sexual assault.
As a married woman, I smile and politely discourage a man who shows interest in me. But as I've said elsewhere, if some guy walked up and kissed me, he would receive a hard slap. If he grabbed the part of my body Trump grabs, he'd walk away with blood running down his face and maybe minus an eye.
I don't think anyone is defending Trump's behavior. Watching the way he has conducted his campaign thus far, and then reading what he said in that 2005 tape, along with what he has said to Stern, it all wraps up the unpleasantness that is Mr Trump. Trump is of the belief that women exist to serve a need for him. That's why he responded the way he did to Megyn Kelly's tough interview
But I think we are losing the language here. Too many are more focused on a legal term verses an unbecoming behavior. I've read enough stories about young college men's academic lives being ruined because of the so called campus "Rape Culture" that has a much broader definition than how the law defines rape.
And there is no context in the statement he made. If he said, " you can go up and kiss them and grab them by the genitals and they won't say anything or dare make a complaint because you're a star" then that's entirely a different issue. I've seen documentaries of aging rock stars were they talk about their past groupies and how those women would let them do whatever they want because of their star power. Never raised an eye before but Trump says the exact same thing and all of a sudden it's a crime and we have Towers of Virtue like Shwartzenneggar(sp) and Hillary Clinton in feigned outrage and shock
-
Twenty-six and a half days before the election, multiple post second debate polls have Hillary up somewhere between 8 and 9 points over Trump.
No candidate in the modern era of polling has ever climbed back from more than 4 points behind over the final month of the campaign to win the presidency.
I hope that the idea of Trump "laying a glove" on Hillary is worth the sight of Hillary wearing the championship belt for the next four years for these people.
@Luis Gonzalez
I don't think any reasonable person believes Trump is going to make it at this point
But if you want to see delusion, take a gander at FR. I go back because I'm still on a economics/finance ping list but I can't help but read some of the things people say to deny a reality
-
No, I'm not saying that they liked it. It is clear that some of his passes were shot down in flames. What I'm saying is that a crude pass is different from an assault in the face of a "no".
And if you think he should be brought to justice over this, fine. Let someone file an assault charge.
If they aren't too afraid to. Men in power are intimidating.
That's part of the abusiveness of predators like Clinton and Trump and why their molestation of young women is so vile.
-
Aside from the 'birther' issue (which America had already heard once going the other way), all the other dirt that could be manufactured had been thrown at Cruz by the Trump people.
There is a distinct difference between Cruz and Obama. Obama is believed to have been born inside the United States, while Cruz is known to be born in Canada.
The media has spent the last 8 years harping on the claim that being born here makes you a "natural born citizen", and that is what most of the public believes.
An additional difference is that Supreme Court legal precedence does not support the claim that someone can be born in a foreign country to only one citizen and still be regarded as a natural citizen. In fact, it says the exact opposite. Rogers v Bellei is very clear on this point, and it *IS* Supreme Court precedent.
Another Supreme Court ruling, and one which is considered a LANDMARK ruling, says quite clearly that being born outside the country makes you a "naturalized" citizen, and not a "natural born citizen."
I'll cite what the Supreme Court said in their Landmark 1898 ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649)
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
I think Cruz may have had a tougher time in court than people realize.
Had Trump not been in the race, I think Cruz would have won handily, despite the media. Polls showed him beating Hillary, and Cruz would have gone after her, not other Republicans.
I don't put much stock in polls for an election campaign that hadn't even started, and I note how the media helped spread Trump's lies about Cruz.
Cruz was the alternative candidate that Hillary's wikileaks emails indicates she wanted.
My thinking is that if the electorate was sane, we would not be hearing of candidate "Hillary."
-
If they aren't too afraid to. Men in power are intimidating.
That's part of the abusiveness of predators like Clinton and Trump and why their molestation of young women is so vile.
@musiclady
And what you said is true. The Major and I are not excusing what Trump did. I have no doubt Trump views women as subordinate to him and will use his star power to his advantage.
The question becomes was there assault or not? If these women kissed back, and then let him touch their genitals, but never gave indications to him to stop, in his mind, then they must be ok with it.
They may have thought, "I don't like this but if I don't kiss back or let him touch me, he could ruin my life," but then that assumes he should be able to read their minds. Women forget that us guys read things different than they do.
-
If they aren't too afraid to. Men in power are intimidating.
I don't know how it is possible to "bring him to justice" if nobody files a charge. And that's also the only way you get a full description, from the victim, of exactly what occurred, her reaction, etc.
-
You say you are "Mensa" smart, yet you keep misrepresenting me even though I have explicitly clarified this point for you at least once. Once again, I am not a Trump lover, I am merely someone who is resigned to Trump as a tool to beat Hillary, of whom I am a very active and long term hater.
I get it that you object to my speech. We are all censorious little Dictators at heart, but most of us have developed the maturity to deal with hearing things we don't like.
She also kept misrepresenting what I said on a post yesterday and kept telling me I had a lousy marriage lol. She is a master at throwing out insults. I agree with you on Trump..he is a flaming ahole but I know he won't take away our guns, will be business friendly and will stand up to the PC that is infecting our country. Illegals? I doubt he will do much..maybe enforce the border more. Not sure if he will get the wall built.
With Hillary I know we will get more social justice warrior laws crammed down our necks, more gov't regulation and less freedom. I fairly confident Hilliary is going to be the next president because half the GOP is fighting Trump. And wait until she puts in liberal SC justices..I'm going to laugh at all The Christian never Trumpers when they don't recognize their Christian schools and churches after a liberal SC get done with them.
@DiogenesLamp
@musiclady
-
They may have thought, "I don't like this but if I don't kiss back or let him touch me, he could ruin my life," but then that assumes he should be able to read their minds.
This is exactly the point at which these discussions always break down. Every single time. The standard idea that a crime requires a criminal state of mind on the part of the perpetrator just gets abandoned in the face of the subjective perceptions of the victim.
-
That was implied, "they let me do it". First I am tried of talking about this, Trump was joking and bragging in a private "man talk" conservation. There is no evidence that he ever did any of the things he was bragging he could do.
Much more important to me is stopping the flow of millions of illegals into the USA.
Much more important to me stopping the flow of hundreds of thousands of unvetted Islamists "refugees" into the USA.
Much more important to me is stopping a Hillary amnesty that gives the vote to tens of millions of Marxists.
Much more important to me is securing our southern border and enforcing our immigration laws.
Much more important to me is renegotiating bad trade deals that have sent our jobs and our wealth over seas.
Much more important to me is stopping our involvement in these useless unwinable nation building wars.
Much more important to me is working with Russia to wipe out ISIS instead of arming and training ISIS like this administration (Hillary) is doing.
@jpsb
Instead of trying to wiggle his words around and spin an implication from them, just take them as he said them, straight out, and use your own common sense.
He said he kissed women without permission, and then said he could do anything, even grabbing their crotches. That action is an extension of the kissing, of the liberties he believed he could take. "They let me do it" means they let him get away with it. Now tell me, if he didn't ask permission to kiss them, do you think he asked if he could grope them? Do you think gropers are in the habit of doing so?
Rudy Giuliani, former prosecutor and Trump lackey, said that what Trump described was sexual assault.
As for your list of things Trump claims he'll do, there's no evidence to believe he'll make good on any of that---in fact, the contrary is true, since much of it has been walked back already. Yet we're supposed to take him at his word when he makes promises, but not when he admits to sexually assaulting women.
I'm really disappointed in conservative men who give lip service to protecting & honoring women while defending that disgusting, slimy, creepy old pervert. If that liar's empty promises are "much more important" to you than his assaults on women, I guess it's good we have that out in the open. But in the future don't pretend that you give a damn about women, all right? And conservative women won't bother standing up for you anymore, either.
-
@LMAO
I don't think anyone is defending Trump's behavior. Watching the way he has conducted his campaign thus far, and then reading what he said in that 2005 tape, along with what he has said to Stern, it all wraps up the unpleasantness that is Mr Trump. Trump is of the belief that women exist to serve a need for him. That's why he responded the way he did to Megyn Kelly's tough interview
It's being defended on this thread and elsewhere on the site. There's a thread titled something like, "You women crack me up."
But I think we are losing the language here. Too many are more focused on a legal term verses an unbecoming behavior. I've read enough stories about young college men's academic lives being ruined because of the so called campus "Rape Culture" that has a much broader definition than how the law defines rape.
Did you read my post to you?
Giuliani admitted it was assault. Don't you think a former prosecutor understands the difference between a legal term and unbecoming behavior?
And there is no context in the statement he made. If he said, " you can go up and kiss them and grab them by the genitals and they won't say anything or dare make a complaint because you're a star" then that's entirely a different issue. I've seen documentaries of aging rock stars were they talk about their past groupies and how those women would let them do whatever they want because of their star power. Never raised an eye before but Trump says the exact same thing and all of a sudden it's a crime and we have Towers of Virtue like Shwartzenneggar(sp) and Hillary Clinton in feigned outrage and shock
Yeah, I guess you have to be a prude living in a "tower of virtue" to believe that grabbing a woman's genitals is assault. She's just a groupie who wanted it to begin with.
There's no use repeating myself when you're ignoring what I post. Defend Trump as you will.
-
He said he kissed women without permission....
I did not get permission from every girl I ever kissed either. Nor did I get permission for each additional step along the way. I mean....do we really need to go into how those things happen in the real world? Are guys supposed to get express permission at each additional level of physical intimacy?
Like I said, I've been grabbed, etc. by women who did not first obtain either express or implied permission. They figured I might be game, and if I wasn't....was it assault? If not, why not?
There's clearly a line...somewhere. I generally think it must be at the point of "what happened when you said no, pulled away, etc." And I'd also say that there is a line crossed if you skip right from 0-60 -- just grabbing a woman in the crotch, without any indication from the woman that she is interested, is a line crossed regardless of whether there was a "no" or not.
The problem I have is that it seems to be something of an all or nothing approach, and that's not realistic.
-
There is a distinct difference between Cruz and Obama. Obama is believed to have been born inside the United States, while Cruz is known to be born in Canada.
I guess it depends on who you talk to. I have heard Canada, Kenya, and even Indonesia. Also that Stanley Ann Dunham's lack of years in residence after the age of 14 made her ability to confer citizenship a question. And then, there is the 'birth certificate' a layerd electronic construct pretty widely accepted as bogus. Ask Loretta Fuddy about that. (Oops, you can't. The M.E. said she died of an arrhythmia even though she had never been diagnosed with any heart condition at all, after surviving (with all others on board) ditching a plane between islands. (She ties into the Subud Cult, too, which goes back to Indonesia, but that's another story). So, no, that issue was far from agreed upon.
But the Cruz issue did hit the press, and the courts before Trump got the nomination--in fact, it was one of Trump's weapons aimed at Cruz.
In fact, GOPee insiders weighed in: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/12/mitch-mcconnell-why-no-the-senate-wont-pass-a-resolution-affirming-cruzs-eligibility-like-it-did-for-mccain/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/12/mitch-mcconnell-why-no-the-senate-wont-pass-a-resolution-affirming-cruzs-eligibility-like-it-did-for-mccain/)
The NYT picked it up: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/lawsuit-questions-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president/?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/lawsuit-questions-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president/?_r=0)
Fox was asking about it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/14/who-can-settle-cruz-eligibility-question-once-and-for-all.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/14/who-can-settle-cruz-eligibility-question-once-and-for-all.html)
A congressman: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom)
Bloggers: https://citizenwells.com/2016/03/27/ted-cruz-pa-eligibility-challenge-appeal-fast-tracked-in-pennsylvania-supreme-court-elliott-v-cruz-elliott-represented-by-attorney-david-j-farrell-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen-pa-primary-schedul/ (https://citizenwells.com/2016/03/27/ted-cruz-pa-eligibility-challenge-appeal-fast-tracked-in-pennsylvania-supreme-court-elliott-v-cruz-elliott-represented-by-attorney-david-j-farrell-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen-pa-primary-schedul/)
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/18/reports-chicago-court-hear-case-knock-cruz-off-white-house-ballot/80586608/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/18/reports-chicago-court-hear-case-knock-cruz-off-white-house-ballot/80586608/)
And yet, there he was, still on the ballot.
The media has spent the last 8 years harping on the claim that being born here makes you a "natural born citizen", and that is what most of the public believes.
An additional difference is that Supreme Court legal precedence does not support the claim that someone can be born in a foreign country to only one citizen and still be regarded as a natural citizen. In fact, it says the exact opposite. Rogers v Bellei is very clear on this point, and it *IS* Supreme Court precedent.
Another Supreme Court ruling, and one which is considered a LANDMARK ruling, says quite clearly that being born outside the country makes you a "naturalized" citizen, and not a "natural born citizen."
I'll cite what the Supreme Court said in their Landmark 1898 ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649)
I think Cruz may have had a tougher time in court than people realize.
I don't put much stock in polls for an election campaign that hadn't even started, and I note how the media helped spread Trump's lies about Cruz.
Cruz was the alternative candidate that Hillary's wikileaks emails indicates she wanted.
My thinking is that if the electorate was sane, we would not be hearing of candidate "Hillary."
I honestly think Cruz versus Hillary would have come down on Cruz as victor. After all, if half the people who claimed to have supported Cruz , but are now supporting Trump in desperation actually supported Cruz, he should have won.
-
I did not get permission from every girl I ever kissed either. Nor did I get permission for each additional step along the way. I mean....do we really need to go into how those things happen in the real world? Are guys supposed to get express permission at each additional level of physical intimacy?
Like I said, I've been grabbed, etc. by women who did not first obtain either express or implied permission. They figured I might be game, and if I wasn't....was it assault? If not, why not?
Neither have I. Nor do I get permission from my wife every time I kiss her. But when I was dating ,if I tried to kiss a girl and she pushed me away I would stop . And I'm not going to judge until I know the context of all of this. I think too many are letting their opposition to Mr. Trump cloud their normal judgment. for one, all we have is words
Ultimately Trump is innocent until proven guilty. He's at least entitled to that . And I'll leave it at that
-
I would like to hear from some of these "conservative" men excusing Trump's behavior here.....
If you have a college age or twenty something daughter and she is a groupie of a rock star and gets a chance to meet him, would YOU be ok if he kissed her and then grabbed her genitals??
Would you excuse the molestation because she was a groupie and didn't say no???
Do you realize what kind of evil you are tacitly or some of you overtly condoning??
If trump molested your daughter would you be so cavalier in his defense??
If so, that is disgusting..
-
Okay, but let's start off by setting the goalposts in the correct place. The argument to which I was responding was that there is no value in electing Republicans down-ticket because the GOP Congress "gave Obama everything he wanted." I mention that because it is almost a ridiculously low bar to meet, and I'm just the guy to meet a really low bar.
So, I listed some of the major things Obama wanted that Congress did not give him:
1) They did not confirm Garland. That likely saved both Citizens United and Heller. Those two issues alone are huge. It is also highly relevant because of the next two points:
Do you believe they did this because they were ideologically opposed to Garland, or do you believe they did this because this is an election year and it would have greatly angered the base who already perceive them as "do nothings" ? Yes, the Senate did the right thing, but the suspicion is that they did it for exactly the wrong reasons. The suspicion further exists that were this not an election year, they would confirm him just as they confirmed Loretta Lynch, who has proven to be exactly the sort of corrupt government official which the base had feared.
2) Congress refused to modify the Clean Air Act as he requested, so he was forced to try to implement his global warming agenda via regulatory action/executive order. He was stopped by the courts.
That one i'll grant you. Democrats would have approved it, but is this the most significant thing on which he should have been opposed? How about this lawless non-budget we've been having for the last 8 years? Also I haven't noticed the courts doing much to stop him. They make noises, but he keeps doing what he wants.
3) They refused to pass his immigration bill, so he was forced to try to get legal status for millions of illegals via regulatory/executive order. Again, he was shot down by the courts. And, a rehearing on this by the Supreme Court was just denied. Had Garland been confirmed, the rehearing likely would have been granted, and Obama's executive actions would have been allowed to proceed. That would have been game over on immigration.
But again, did they do this because they believed it was the right thing to do, or did they do this because they believed that if they didn't, the voters would enact vengeance upon them? I'm getting the impression that many of them are actually in favor of illegal immigration, but have to tell the voters what they want to hear.
4) They refused to pass amendments he wanted to the Affordable Care Act, and in fact passed legislation barring the use of federal funds to backstop insurance companies that were losing money in the exchanges. The result of those failed amendments and legislation has been to force ObamaCare into the death spiral.
My recollection is that they did pass legislation to modify when and how Obamacare was to be pressed down upon us. They deliberately drained off much of it's poison so as to make it more palatable to people instead of forcing everyone to immediately feel it's horrible effects.
Strategically the better approach would be to allow people to immediately suffer under Obamacare so as to create the political will necessary to repeal it. This was a golden opportunity which they deliberately bungled because they do not seem to know how to play this political game properly.
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
-Abraham Lincoln-
Again, I want to emphasize that considering where the goalposts were set - "there is no value in electing Republicans" - pointing out times where they failed to stop Obama doesn't advance the ball on the other side. Someone literally must show that they caved on everything, which cannot be done.
I am of two minds about this. I am very cognizant of the fact that as Jefferson said:
"... all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "
and I recognize that the Republicans holding the House and Senate did a little good, but in order to right what I perceive to be grave problems in our current government I do not believe this is sufficient.
We must change the existing paradigm. We must either Advance, or we must create the conditions necessary for a future advance. Their efforts to provide a holding action against Obama were pathetic. I remember when Tip O'Niell was speaker of the house, so I have a baseline from which to compare their efforts.
Tip O'Niell would have destroyed Obama. (Had they been on opposite sides.) The closest we have come to Tip O'Neill's intransigence is Newt Gingrich, and the media warred on him relentlessly, but he put up a fight. A real fight. He forced Clinton to balance the budget , and he pushed Clinton into embracing Welfare Reform.
So we have two paths. One path is to elect Republicans that will fight the Federal Leviathan, (if they *WILL* fight) and the other path is to cut the brakes and let the system bludgeon the populace until it engenders sufficient wrath in the people who will then demand "change."
Both are fraught with potential disaster, and at this point I am not sure which is the better choice for the long term benefit of the Nation. Obviously a lot of the "never Trumpers" think the "Let it burn" solution is the better choice.
-
Scoundrel Media Bankruptcy: Glorifying Hillary, Vilifying Trump
Lockstep US political reporting is the most vulgar and disgraceful in modern memory, anywhere in Western societies, revealing unprecedented moral and ethical media bankruptcy.
Praise for a ruthless woman belonging in prison, not high office, shows how low political reporting has sunk. Trump bashing showed political assassination reaching depths never thought possible.
It’s not a pretty picture, exposing how bad presstitution can get. Hillary represents an unprecedented menace.
Yet The New Times promotes her candidacy with daily religious fervor, shamelessly headlining a Tuesday piece “ ‘I’m the Last Thing Standing Between You and the Apocalypse,’ “ quoting her shameless Big Lie.
The rest of the puff piece could have been, and likely was, written by Hillary’s staff, expressing undisguised adulation, not a critical or discouraging word or thought - polar opposite fair, impartial commentary and analysis.
NYT: “Clinton (is) warm and animated…Her contempt for Trump (is) clear…’I’m not going to lose’ on November 8, she said.
Fact: Indeed she’ll win because power brokers won’t tolerate a Trump presidency, fearing his independence might compromise their ruthless agenda.
Fact: When cameras are running, Hillary oozes cordiality. Her private persona is polar opposite, a she-devil, reviling democratic values and rule of law principles, unaccountable for high crimes too great to ignore.
Fact: She despises anyone daring to challenge for the prize she covets - returning the Clinton crime family co-presidency to the White House.
The entire Times article read like a made-for-media Hillary promotion, excluding anything possibly harming her campaign - polar opposite what real journalism is supposed to be, a disgusting display of partisanship.
Yet it defeated its purpose by being excessively long and boring. Most readers don’t go beyond the first half dozen or less paragraphs.
A separate same-day article headlined How Hillary Became ‘Hillary’ was another shameless puff piece promotion, pretending to be legitimate journalism, found nowhere in Times editions on issues mattering most.
In stark contrast to shameless Hillary promotion, Trump bashing exceeds Star Trek - going where journalism (sic) never went before.
Neocon Washington Post reporting is especially galling. The publication long ago fell from grace. Here’s a snapshot of recent opinion page commentaries:
“Donald Trump is four centuries too late - He would have enjoyed the wealth and suppression of the 17th century.” Lake Wobegon’s Garrison Keillor embarrassed himself with the rubbish he wrote.
“Donald Trump is one more bullyboy in a world of strongmen.” David Ignatius is best known as a CIA asset, serving its interests, not readers.
“Why we shouldn’t forgive the Republicans who sold their souls. The GOP’s inability to stop Trump shows the party is unfit to lead the country.” Neocon Robert Kagan co-founded the Project for the New American Century (now called the Foreign Policy Initiative), endorsing a permanent US war agenda for unchallenged world dominance.
“Why Hillary Clinton is the right choice for progressives.” Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel continues the publication’s shameless editorial policy from inception, most often supporting America’s imperial agenda and other US policies demanding denunciation.
“Trump files for moral bankruptcy”
“Trump can’t stop his campaign’s death spiral”
Donald Trump is the GOP’s chemotherapy…a marvelously efficient acid bath, stripping away his supporters’ surfaces…”
“Donal Trump’s strategy for minority Americans? Don’t let them vote.”
“Reasonable Republicans can’t save the GOP from Trump”
All of the above was from a single issue. Similar attack pieces continue daily, compared to shameless praise alone for Hillary.
US power brokers chose her to succeed Obama last year or earlier. Trump never had a chance from the get-go.
Prepare for the worst. Hillary’s ascension to power is a prescription for possible nuclear war on Russia, along with full-blown homeland tyranny under martial law to eliminate nonbelievers.
-
> snip<
But again, did they do this because they believed it was the right thing to do, or did they do this because they believed that if they didn't, the voters would enact vengeance upon them? I'm getting the impression that many of them are actually in favor of illegal immigration, but have to tell the voters what they want to hear.
WHo cares, if the right thing was done. Maybe we should have elections every year, or the option to recall.
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
-Abraham Lincoln-
It depends on the law. If the law stated "All in opposition to this law shall be summarily shot." there might be a better course of action.
I am of two minds about this. I am very cognizant of the fact that as Jefferson said:
"... all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "
and I recognize that the Republicans holding the House and Senate did a little good, but in order to right what I perceive to be grave problems in our current government I do not believe this is sufficient.
We must change the existing paradigm. We must either Advance, or we must create the conditions necessary for a future advance. Their efforts to provide a holding action against Obama were pathetic. I remember when Tip O'Niell was speaker of the house, so I have a baseline from which to compare their efforts.
Tip O'Niell would have destroyed Obama. (Had they been on opposite sides.) The closest we have come to Tip O'Neill's intransigence is Newt Gingrich, and the media warred on him relentlessly, but he put up a fight. A real fight. He forced Clinton to balance the budget , and he pushed Clinton into embracing Welfare Reform.
So we have two paths. One path is to elect Republicans that will fight the Federal Leviathan, (if they *WILL* fight) and the other path is to cut the brakes and let the system bludgeon the populace until it engenders sufficient wrath in the people who will then demand "change."
Both are fraught with potential disaster, and at this point I am not sure which is the better choice for the long term benefit of the Nation. Obviously a lot of the "never Trumpers" think the "Let it burn" solution is the better choice.
I don't think you understand that a number of us think that the brakes are already cut, the train is going to wreck either way, and the slate we're looking at indicates the fire is already going. We are just not going to pour more gasoline on it.
YMMV
-
I would like to hear from some of these "conservative" men excusing Trump's behavior here.....
If you have a college age or twenty something daughter and she is a groupie of a rock star and gets a chance to meet him, would YOU be ok if he kissed her and then grabbed her genitals??
Would you excuse the molestation because she was a groupie and didn't say no???
Do you realize what kind of evil you are tacitly or some of you overtly condoning??
If trump molested your daughter would you be so cavalier in his defense??
If so, that is disgusting..
Not comparable.
What were talking about is a legal issue
-
I don't know how it is possible to "bring him to justice" if nobody files a charge. And that's also the only way you get a full description, from the victim, of exactly what occurred, her reaction, etc.
That's the problem with abusive men in power like Trump and Clinton isn't it?
Women are afraid of the power they hold over them and the molesters get away with it.
The abuse of power is also why bosses lose their jobs when they abuse women who work for them.
Both Clinton and trump would have been fired in a normal work situation.
-
Not comparable.
What were talking about is a legal issue
Precisely comparable.
-
I would like to hear from some of these "conservative" men excusing Trump's behavior here.....
If you have a college age or twenty something daughter and she is a groupie of a rock star and gets a chance to meet him, would YOU be ok if he kissed her and then grabbed her genitals??
Would you excuse the molestation because she was a groupie and didn't say no???
Do you realize what kind of evil you are tacitly or some of you overtly condoning??
If trump molested your daughter would you be so cavalier in his defense??
If so, that is disgusting..
Do you really think the women Trump has supposedly done this to are innocent little virgins on religious camp in the Big Apple?
No, they are rough and tumble, streetwise, know what and whom they are dealing with and have dealt with guys plenty worse than Trump and shall I say it... most if not all women who flock around Trump are Gold Diggers or want something out of him also. Like people hang out together.
Only one woman has claimed Trump did this to her (Jill Harth?) and she has praised him as a candidate and is supporting him.
@musiclady
-
I would like to hear from some of these "conservative" men excusing Trump's behavior here.....
If you have a college age or twenty something daughter and she is a groupie of a rock star and gets a chance to meet him, would YOU be ok if he kissed her and then grabbed her genitals??
Would you excuse the molestation because she was a groupie and didn't say no???
Well, if we're being honest here....how do I know it was "molestation" if she didn't say no? And how does that rocker know that his attentions aren't wanted if she doesn't say no?
My daughter and step-daughter both have made casual mention of some guy "putting the moves on them", them saying "ew", and then leaving, saying no, or whatever. That's how I'd expect them to handle it, and I'm not going to condemn every guy who makes an attempt and gets shot down.
Should we require guys to get express verbal consent from girls before trying to kiss them, and at each successive stage of romantic intimacy, or no?
-
Precisely comparable.
Well then let's solve this. Let's pass a law that men and women have to carry sexual permission slips. They will have to be filled out by both parties and agreed to before any act of intimacy takes place. Some are taking their opposition of Trump and are starting to sound more and more like the left. And their latching on to Rudy Giuliani's words as a sort of lifeline without trying to understand any context
Are some advocating that if a man makes a pass at a woman he's guilty of sexual assault? That seems a little extreme to me.
You are looking at this through the prism of a female. That a man like Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's famous and rich. I get that. I'm just saying there needs to be some context here a little bit. In Trump's own words, he didn't say they don't dare say no or they don't dare turn you in. He just says they let you do it
-
Well, if we're being honest here....how do I know it was "molestation" if she didn't say no? And how does that rocker know that his attentions aren't wanted if she doesn't say no?
My daughter and step-daughter both have made casual mention of some guy "putting the moves on them", them saying "ew", and then leaving, saying no, or whatever. That's how I'd expect them to handle it, and I'm not going to condemn every guy who makes an attempt and gets shot down.
Should we require guys to get express verbal consent from girls before trying to kiss them, and at each successive stage of romantic intimacy, or no?
You keep ignoring the threat of power here. It's a critical point that shouldn't be overlooked.
Trump himself said he could get away with his molestation because he was rich and powerful.
Don't keep ignoring that aspect of his offense.
-
Well then let's solve this. Let's pass a law that men and women have to carry sexual permission slips. They will have to be filled out by both parties and agreed to before any act of intimacy takes place. Some are taking their opposition of Trump and are starting to sound more and more like the left. And their latching on to Rudy Giuliani's words as a sort of lifeline without trying to understand any context
Are some advocating that if a man makes a pass at a woman he's guilty of sexual assault? That seems a little extreme to me.
You are looking at this through the prism of a female. That a man like Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's famous and rich. I get that. I'm just saying there needs to be some context here a little bit. In Trump's own words, he didn't say they don't dare say no or they don't dare turn you in. He just says they let you do it
Since when is grabbing a woman's crotch "making a pass"? That isn't usually the opening gambit any place I have been.
-
I would like to hear from some of these "conservative" men excusing Trump's behavior here.....
If you have a college age or twenty something daughter and she is a groupie of a rock star and gets a chance to meet him, would YOU be ok if he kissed her and then grabbed her genitals??
Would you excuse the molestation because she was a groupie and didn't say no???
Do you realize what kind of evil you are tacitly or some of you overtly condoning??
If trump molested your daughter would you be so cavalier in his defense??
If so, that is disgusting..
As a father I would not be OK with any of that regardless of who or how rich & famous the guy was and even if my daughter gave her permission with great enthusiasm (and I'm confident she wouldn't).
-
Since when is grabbing a woman's crotch "making a pass"? That isn't usually the opening gambit any place I have been.
With my luck if I tried to do that "crotch grab" I'd end up like Mick Dundee did.
-
The constitutional conservative position is all people are entitled to the assumption of innocent till proven guilty. Regardless of how bad you don't like Mr. Trump he still is entitled to that.
And we don't know what was in Mr. Trump's mind or any of these women's mind when any of this happened. Thats why we have things like jury trials and the right to a defense. And we are a nation of laws or we should be. We are rapidly becoming a nation of suggestions and feelings
I don't want to see America become nothing more than a liberal arts college
-
@DiogenesLamp :
At the outset, the reason I'm picky about this argument is how it is used -- "don't vote for republicans/destroy the party". I think that is a sufficiently dangerous course that it deserves opposition. In fact, it's a lot of what motivated the Trump supporters in the primaries -- "we must elect Trump to destroy the GOP". And I think most of us can see how well that's turned out....
Do you believe they did this because they were ideologically opposed to Garland, or do you believe they did this because this is an election year and it would have greatly angered the base who already perceive them as "do nothings" ?
The why is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they, in fact, "gave Obama everything he wanted". They did not.
Their motives weren't within the purview of the initial claim. Although I would add this -- at least with Republicans, elections raise the prospect of being able to put pressure on them from a conservative perspective. With Democrats, the effect would be exactly the opposite. In other words, if it would have been Democrats with a Senate majority, Garland would already have been confirmed. So again, going back to the underlying assertion of it not really mattering who we elect...yes, it matters.
The suspicion further exists that were this not an election year, they would confirm him just as they confirmed Loretta Lynch, who has proven to be exactly the sort of corrupt government official which the base had feared.
Absolutely no argument there. But we were in an election year, and the result therefore is different. Had we nominated someone other than the Orange Freak, we would have gotten to appoint a justice far more likely to see things our way. That is a huge, real world difference in results.
That one i'll grant you. Democrats would have approved it, but is this the most significant thing on which he should have been opposed?
Whether it is the most significant thing they should have opposed doesn't make their opposition meaningless. That's the standard, because again, the argument is "don't vote for Republicans because they don't do ianything to stop Obama anyway. That is simply false. They clearly didn't do as much to stop Obama as some of us would have liked, but that doesn't mean that they gave him everything, such that there is "no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.
How about this lawless non-budget we've been having for the last 8 years? Also I haven't noticed the courts doing much to stop him. They make noises, but he keeps doing what he wants.
Again.... the issue is not whether they stopped everything. It's whether they stopped nothing. That's why I prefaced this entire conversation by first establishing where the goalposts actually are. And they nevertheless seem to be creeping....
But again, did they do this because they believed it was the right thing to do, or did they do this because they believed that if they didn't,
So what? The legal result on that issue is the exact same. They did stop it. And so what if they did it just so that voters wouldn't lynch them? That's a great reason to elect Republicans -- because unlike Democrats, they are subject to pressure from conservative voters on some critical issues. Not on all of them, but on some important ones, we can influence their votes in a positive direction.
My recollection is that they did pass legislation to modify when and how Obamacare was to be pressed down upon us. They deliberately drained off much of it's poison so as to make it more palatable to people instead of forcing everyone to immediately feel it's horrible effects.
But they also refused to backstop the insurance companies. Again, offering examples of where they failed to stop Obama does not prove they did not stop him in other areas. In this particular case, it was the refusal to add additional funds, plus the Rubio Amendment. Compare the result to if it had been Democrats in charge. Massive additional subsidies, likely higher individual/employer penalties, no death spiral. We are in a better position because they did not give in to Obama on that issue.
Strategically the better approach would be to allow people to immediately suffer under Obamacare so as to create the political will necessary to repeal it. This was a golden opportunity which they deliberately bungled because they do not seem to know how to play this political game properly.
That is exactly what the Rubio Amendment and related actions have done in pushing the exchanges into the death spiral. They didn't do as much as we wanted, but they certainly did something of real consequence.
-
You keep ignoring the threat of power here. It's a critical point that shouldn't be overlooked.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that despite that "threat of power", a "no" or affirmative expression of refusal is required if you are going to accuse the man of assault -- again, given the limitations I expressed above.
And you keep ignoring the question of whether a man must get affirmative consent from a woman first before kissing or touching her in any way. And to address your point, I'll limit it. Must a wealthy, powerful, or popular (entertainment star, athlete, etc.) man ask permission, and get positive, affirmative consent from a women before kissing or touching her in any way?
-
No, I'm not. I'm saying that despite that "threat of power", a "no" or affirmative expression of refusal is required if you are going to accuse the man of assault -- again, given the limitations I expressed above.
And you keep ignoring the question of whether a man must get affirmative consent from a woman first before kissing or touching her in any way. And to address your point, I'll limit it. Must a wealthy, powerful, or popular (entertainment star, athlete, etc.) man ask permission, and get positive, affirmative consent from a women before kissing or touching her in any way?
Most women who want contact with the wealthy, popular, or powerful have ways to indicate that through eye contact, speech, posture, body language, touching, etc. There really isn't much there that is ambiguous. If the situation is in question, there are much less offensive ways to touch a woman which would give some indication of whether or not one might consider proceeding to become more intimate, or whether she might be enthusiastic about that contact. Grabbing straight for parts considered 'private' isn't the best methodology in such instances. I'll grant we're not junior high kids on their way to their second date with Linda Sue at the movies wondering if we should drop our hand off her shoulder, but if a woman turns out of a guy's touch, that's an indicator she might not want the contact. Grabbing her crotch, only leaves one route for retreat (backwards) and if she's against a wall, no route for retreat at all.
My take on this was 'I own the pageant, so I own the contestants', Now extrapolate that to 'I am the President, I am the Boss....'
-
I will have to say that the Trump candidacy has really turned the conservative movement on its head.
It seems if you like Trump or dislike Trump, some people have adopted a little bit of left-wing thinking to either support or oppose him.
Makes me pessimistic that it will ever recover. But it will have to because we have major problems facing this country in the short and long-term fiscal, culturally, and economically in nature
-
The constitutional conservative position is all people are entitled to the assumption of innocent till proven guilty. Regardless of how bad you don't like Mr. Trump he still is entitled to that.
And we don't know what was in Mr. Trump's mind or any of these women's mind when any of this happened. Thats why we have things like jury trials and the right to a defense. And we are a nation of laws or we should be. We are rapidly becoming a nation of suggestions and feelings?
This is not a courtroom trial. This is an election and opinions sway votes.
-
My take on this was 'I own the pageant, so I own the contestants', Now extrapolate that to 'I am the President, I am the Boss....'
@Smokin Joe
And you just veered into where the subject should be at. Trump does seem to believe his wealth and fame allows him certain entitlements. I have always said that Trump's Twitter wars are disturbing. But they become a crisis when a president Trump has access to government agencies to go after opposition
-
This is not a courtroom trial. This is an election and opinions sway votes.
I won't disagree with you on that. And it appears the voters have determined him guilty. Voters are not burdenedwith things like innocent till proven guilty and trial by jury....lol
-
The Founders so disagreed on what the nature of God was (some were devout Christians, others deists) that they expressly barred religious tests and passed the Bill of Rights.
Oh jeeze, another fallacy that would take much verbiage and examples to refute. I will point out that the Declaration, (That thing which actually created US Citizens) asserts that it's authority comes from God. The Articles of Confederacy acknowledges this too, and to many people's surprise, so does the US Constitution. In fact, it was widely understood throughout all of society at that time that all power comes from God.
Modern people have no comprehension of how deeply religion suffused society back in those days. That government derived from God was de rigueur in political philosophy of the time. We modern folk have been bamboozled into thinking the founders were a bunch of Secular Atheists, when in fact their intent on barring religious test for holding office were a necessary compromise made between a coalition of states with differing official religions. (Maryland was Catholic, Virginia was Anglican, Pennsylvania was Quaker, and so forth)
They couldn't allow religious tests on doctrine because it would effectively stop people from states with differing denominations from holding federal office. It was a practical effort to reassure States with differing official religions from being excluded in the national governance. It had absolutely nothing to do with keeping the government equally neutral to all religions.
It was understood by all at that time that the government was explicitly Christian and that it's power to govern over others derived from God. Every nation in the world at the time recognized the "Divine Right of Kings" (Meaning the King rules because it was God's will) and so too did the Fledgling Republic believe that all civil power derived from God.
Natural Law is not accepted in court. See Lawrence v. Texas, Obergfell v. Hodges for prime examples.
Are you telling me that you simply accept what modern courts say in overturning precedent as old as the nation? You do know the vote was Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer?
Most conservatives believe that Liberal courts are distorting the constitution, not applying it accurately and in context.
Roe v Wade asserts the 14th amendment as it's legal authority. That an amendment specifically designed to grant citizenship to former slaves is the legal authority to kill babies is utter nonsense, and most conservatives recognize that the Courts have been full of nonsense every since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman spent a couple of decades stacking the courts with Kooks.
I argue about the insanity of the Courts all the time, and it is a strange conservative that regards the courts as correct when they overturn precedent which is older than the Nation.
-
The constitutional conservative position is all people are entitled to the assumption of innocent till proven guilty. Regardless of how bad you don't like Mr. Trump he still is entitled to that.
Oh, no argument, if we were going to put Mr. Trump on trial, if he was going to face fines or jail time for a crime. However his behaviour, as evidenced in his statements about his behaviour, is indicative of other issues. Those issues are not something that can be adjudicated, but will have impact on his behaviour going forward, and quite possibly bespeak a foible which could have negative implications for the entire nation.
And we don't know what was in Mr. Trump's mind or any of these women's mind when any of this happened. Thats why we have things like jury trials and the right to a defense. And we are a nation of laws or we should be. We are rapidly becoming a nation of suggestions and feelings
I seriously doubt a jury trial would necessarily bring forth what was on his mind, or theirs, either. If he was at his worst and his thoughts could lead to conviction, he could not be forced to testify against himself, could contend his statements were taken out of context, etc. and any testimony otherwise about whet he was thinking would be mere speculation and not evidential.
In a situation without witnesses (who would agree to testify, knowing they would have a hard time ever getting a job again), one might be able to make a case. But, then, predators are often quite good at separating prey from the herd, and such advances would not be made in a venue where they could be observed.
I don't want to see America become nothing more than a liberal arts college
In the classical sense (40-50 years ago), that might not have been such a bad thing. As it looks now, me neither.
-
@Smokin Joe
And you just veered into where the subject should be at. Trump does seem to believe his wealth and fame allows him certain entitlements. I have always said that Trump's Twitter wars are disturbing. But they become a crisis when a president Trump has access to government agencies to go after opposition
@LMAO
In a nutshell, I see a distinct tendency to abuse power, and do so to settle personal scores or for personal gain. That bodes ill, indeed.
-
She also kept misrepresenting what I said on a post yesterday and kept telling me I had a lousy marriage lol. She is a master at throwing out insults. I agree with you on Trump..he is a flaming ahole but I know he won't take away our guns, will be business friendly and will stand up to the PC that is infecting our country. Illegals? I doubt he will do much..maybe enforce the border more. Not sure if he will get the wall built.
With Hillary I know we will get more social justice warrior laws crammed down our necks, more gov't regulation and less freedom. I fairly confident Hilliary is going to be the next president because half the GOP is fighting Trump. And wait until she puts in liberal SC justices..I'm going to laugh at all The Christian never Trumpers when they don't recognize their Christian schools and churches after a liberal SC get done with them.
@DiogenesLamp
@musiclady
Absolutely agree with you about a significant chunk (mainly the Rockefeller wing "elites") of the party is fighting their own nominee. I would respect them if they just shut up, but trying to assist the media in making a bunch of crude talk into a significant issue while we have Russia moving nuclear missiles into the Baltic, while ISIS is murdering thousands of people, especially Christians, illegals streaming across the border and 20 trillion dollars in debt?
These are people who do not have a proper sense of priority. Thousands of people are going to die because they want to elevate profanity to importance! Really I think this is more about "virtue signaling" and hating Trump for various reasons (he beat Jeb) rather than any real concern for what is best for the nation.
What is best for the nation is a future that does not include Hillary Nazi Clinton in a position of power.
What we have are a lot of people who are caught up in elevating trivialities and as a result they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They are jumping from the frying pan into the fire, and thereby causing the rest of us to fall into it with them.
I feel like I am living in Germany in 1933. We are oblivious to the dangers posed by that Hilli-Monter.
Trump's an @$$, but Hillary is a vicious monster who will get people killed both inadvertently *and* deliberately.
-
Most women who want contact with the wealthy, popular, or powerful have ways to indicate that through eye contact, speech, posture, body language, touching, etc. There really isn't much there that is ambiguous.
To the contrary, I think a great deal of that is ambiguous. People honestly misread such signals all the time. That doesn't mean that are aren't some very clear signals - just that a great many signals are not clear. And hat begs the question of what we do if a guy misreads something, and the woman does not respond with a "no" after he acts. What the hell do we do with that?
I know women who have had guys make a crude pass, shot them down, and been fine with it afterwards. I've seen people act that way when they get a bit of booze in them, both ways. And I'm reluctant to label all of those instances "sexual assault", with the corresponding rallying of the lynch mob, without ensuring that I've got a good feeling for the context.
-
To the contrary, I think a great deal of that is ambiguous. People honestly misread such signals all the time. That doesn't mean that are aren't some very clear signals - just that a great many signals are not clear. And hat begs the question of what we do if a guy misreads something, and the woman does not respond with a "no" after he acts. What the hell do we do with that?
I know women who have had guys make a crude pass, shot them down, and been fine with it afterwards. I've seen people act that way when they get a bit of booze in them, both ways. And I'm reluctant to label all of those instances "sexual assault", with the corresponding rallying of the lynch mob, without ensuring that I've got a good feeling for the context.
Again, out of context. In a bar is one thing, drinking is another instance where poor judgement might apply. But shopping for furniture? Changing clothes for the Miss America Pageant backstage? Going back to her room and finding him naked in the bed? This isn't a stolen kiss or a pat on the butt we're talking about, it's a crotch grab as the opening gambit.
-
No, I'm not. I'm saying that despite that "threat of power", a "no" or affirmative expression of refusal is required if you are going to accuse the man of assault -- again, given the limitations I expressed above.
And you keep ignoring the question of whether a man must get affirmative consent from a woman first before kissing or touching her in any way. And to address your point, I'll limit it. Must a wealthy, powerful, or popular (entertainment star, athlete, etc.) man ask permission, and get positive, affirmative consent from a women before kissing or touching her in any way?
The subject is not "touching a woman in any way." The subject is explicit, unsolicited sexual contact between a powerful, rich man, and a weaker woman (both physically and in terms of position).
If you are referring to just kissing and holding hands between equals, we are not discussing what Trump did.
And that IS the subject here, is it not? What you are asking is a side issue, and IMO, diversionary and irrelevant to the discussion.
(btw, GO TRIBE! :laugh:)
-
I won't disagree with you on that. And it appears the voters have determined him guilty. Voters are not burdenedwith things like innocent till proven guilty and trial by jury....lol
Many people take the confession of guilt as guilt. He is a sexual predator who molested women, based on his own admission.
For most people, that's enough to keep him from being President.
IMO, it should be for ALL people, but that's obviously not the case.
-
Hitting on married women is scummy, but I don't think it counts as a disqualifier for office.
But you expect the same man to respect his vows to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the Laws of the United States, and expect others in his regime to respect and uphold their vows to the same when he clearly does not uphold his own personal marriage vows or respect the vows of others whom he desires?
You have either deceived yourself or do not think character has any bearing on how one governs.
Very dangerous combination for an electorate to have. It's how genocidal madmen are granted power and afforded space to do their will.
-
And when you're a star they let you do it
consenting female, not an assault. Plus he was just bragging in some private "man talk". The whole thing is ridiculous, there is no there there. Just another attempt by the media and the uniparty to take down Trump.
That is not man talk. That is pervert talk. I've known a lot of good men in my life, including my husband, who would never ever say things like that. What's more, they would never listen to that kind of utter sleaze.
If you want to worship a man like that, I guess you can, but don't expect the rest of us to do it.
-
That is not man talk. That is pervert talk. I've known a lot of good men in my life, including my husband, who would never ever say things like that. What's more, they would never listen to that kind of utter sleaze.
If you want to worship a man like that, I guess you can, but don't expect the rest of us to do it.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,229289.0/topicseen.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,229289.0/topicseen.html)
Trump Walked in on Miss Teen USA Contestants While They Were Changing — Some As Young as 15
-
That's the subtlety that just gets lost when this stuff is reduced to a few words on a page, or in a casual statement. We simply don't know the full context.
Subtlety??? Thy name is not Donald Trump. If you want to defend the sleazy pervert, I guess you can. But there is a plethora of stuff out there that Donald Trump cannot deny.
Even if you think it's 'just words' ... are you really for a president who would use those 'words'?
-
Do you really think the women Trump has supposedly done this to are innocent little virgins on religious camp in the Big Apple?
No, they are rough and tumble, streetwise, know what and whom they are dealing with and have dealt with guys plenty worse than Trump and shall I say it... most if not all women who flock around Trump are Gold Diggers or want something out of him also. Like people hang out together.
Only one woman has claimed Trump did this to her (Jill Harth?) and she has praised him as a candidate and is supporting him.
@musiclady
You brought up multiple strawmen arguments in one brief post. Kudos. That must have taken quite the effort.
But since it would be time consuming to try to deal with all of them, and since I know based on your very bad behavior yesterday (mods deleting your ugly posts on 2 different threads, and all that) that you won't deal well with the truth when it's given to you, nor to an opinion other than your warped view on humanity, so I won't waste the time.
Good bye.
-
An awful lot gets ignored as not worthy of complaint. Someone is out of line, you put them back in line, end of story. In many cases, it's just not worth complaining about--but we're guys, and yes, Virginia, there is a double standard there.
But, once again, we're seeing a small rock sticking out of an ocean. That little chunk of lithic material above sea level isn't floating, it isn't something isolated, rather it has a lot beneath it holding it up.
The idea that because he is somebody he can conduct himself in such a fashion as to ignore the patent lack of desire some women may have for his advances is the foundation that small rock sits on. Whether that be callous disregard for other people, objectification, hubris on his part, or the idea that somehow money and a little fame (often seen as equating to power) grant him immunity from the rules--whether those be just common decency or the Law--a lot unseen underlies his behaviour.
You decide whether that is just a rare instance of misguided testosterone, like a rock floating in the ocean, or the tip of a seamount, just the momentary manifestation of a much deeper syndrome of behaviour. If the latter, then it bespeaks an attitude that the ordinary rules don't apply to him as a result of his wealth or fame or power, some form of jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur.
As for assault, well, one possible metric is simple enough to apply. If the average guy did what he claimed he did to whom he did it to, would he be facing charges? If you or I walked in on Miss USA pageant contestants changing clothes? Laid nude in their hotel beds waiting for them? Groped married women while 'shopping for furniture'? What are the chances we would be arrested for such behaviour?
If he only 'got away with it' because of wealth, fame, or 'power', that bespeaks a serious tendency to abuse that power, if not the feeling that he is entitled to do so. That's the mountain that puts the little rock above the waves. We know what Hillary will do with such an attitude. After all, 'rules are for little people'. Unfortunately, supporting that mentality from the allegedly Conservative end of the political spectrum would leave no place at the table for the Rule of Law.
Yep! I would love for Olivia Benson to get hold of this pervert. He'd be behind bars so quick he wouldn't have time to grab the TicTacs.
-
Yep! I would love for Olivia Benson to get hold of this pervert. He'd be behind bars so quick he wouldn't have time to grab the TicTacs.
hehe............... now THAT would be a sight to behold!
-
That is not man talk. That is pervert talk. I've known a lot of good men in my life, including my husband, who would never ever say things like that. What's more, they would never listen to that kind of utter sleaze.
If you want to worship a man like that, I guess you can, but don't expect the rest of us to do it.
I have talked like that about women with close male friends over the years even after being married. Talked about a woman's body features in explicit crude detail. Not groping or kissing like Trump alleges.
I have NEVER talked that way in front of my wife though so she also probably thinks I would never talk that way.
Most women and men would be surprised to see how their spouses act among their own sex-close friends kinda talk.
As I mentioned on another thread which I got flamed over..I have seen women how they act when they get out of town or among close female friends. Totally different. Country conservative gals turn into little vixens.
@Emjay
@jpsb
-
I can't tell you by memory, but I've done it before and it's sooooo worth the trouble. There's a certain feline whose posts are as useless as tits on a boar hog, so I finally employed the ignore feature. But that person is not nearly as loquacious as @DiogenesLamp. It's curious that so many of the Trumpettes exhibit the traits of their orange god, not the least of which is diarrhea of the mouth. Jabber, jabber, blabber, prattle, prattle, prattle, blab, blab, blabber, ad nauseum, yet actually saying precious little. Making DL's posts even more pesky is the overuse of graphics.
When I put that feline poster on ignore, I just went into my profile and clicked around until I figured out how to set it to ignore. The outcome has been such a plus, I'm going to follow your lead regarding DL. BTW, be prepared to not be able to ignore this person completely since there will me those who will quote his/her posts in order to respond to them. In spite of that, it really does make navigating the threads more productive.
@Emjay
Yes !!! It is so worth the trouble. If a clueless poster does an occasional one-liner, I can ignore it but the person in question has diarrhea of the keyboard and thinks he's really, really smart and it just gets to be tiring.
I smile every time I read the precious words "this poster is being ignored." woo hoo
-
Not comparable.
What were talking about is a legal issue
Not really. We're talking about a fat, loathsome predator who actually brags about his horrible behavior.
If it were a man on the street, or a man I knew casually, I would simply avoid him.
This is a man running for president and what he says and does matters.
-
You brought up multiple strawmen arguments in one brief post. Kudos. That must have taken quite the effort.
But since it would be time consuming to try to deal with all of them, and since I know based on your very bad behavior yesterday (mods deleting your ugly posts on 2 different threads, and all that) that you won't deal well with the truth when it's given to you, nor to an opinion other than your warped view on humanity, so I won't waste the time.
Good bye.
One of the post was a by Freeper vigilanteman which I just copied. The other post I take credit for and it was right on the money. Can't help you are naive about male-female relationships.
I have seen your post. You are a typical 3rd wave feminist trying to make the world think men and women look at sex the same.
@musiclady
-
I have talked like that about women with close male friends over the years even after being married. Talked about a woman's body features in explicit crude detail. Not groping or kissing like Trump alleges.
I have NEVER talked that way in front of my wife though so she also probably thinks I would never talk that way.
Most women and men would be surprised to see how their spouses act among their own sex-close friends kinda talk.
As I mentioned on another thread which I got flamed over..I have seen women how they act when they get out of town or among close female friends. Totally different. Country conservative gals turn into little vixens.
@Emjay
@jpsb
I am so glad I did not marry a man like you. You are sick.
-
One of the post was a by Freeper vigilanteman which I just copied. The other post I take credit for and it was right on the money. Can't help you are naive about male-female relationships.
I have seen your post. You are a typical 3rd wave feminist trying to make the world think men and women look at sex the same.
@musiclady
LOL! I'm probably more than twice your age, married for 40 years, raised four children who are healthy adults, and I'm well read.
The idea that a young whippersnapper like you calls me naïve is most likely the dumbest accusation anyone has ever leveled at me.
As for as "3rd wave feminism" (whatever that is), if it means that men and women respect each other and don't treat each other like filth (as you enjoy doing), then I'm good with that.
Let's hear it for "feminism" that prefers men who are men and women who are women and (hot) sex between married adults. :beer:
-
I am so glad I did not marry a man like you. You are sick.
Join the club.
He's a pip, ain't he?
Treats women like trash and then brags about it.
A true victim of the left's "sexual revolution." No idea what's right and what's wrong. And PROUD of it.
-
I am so glad I did not marry a man like you. You are sick.
Give it up don't be naive.. most normal men talk among themselves about women that would shock most women.
You have also fallen into the feminist trap that men and women think and do exactly alike
@Emjay
-
Treats women like trash and then brags about it.
Most normal men talk about women-"man she has a nice a##" type of talk amongst themselves
You are so clueless it's incredible.
@musiclady
-
I am curious about the men on this forum who are defending Trump's words and actions.
Were they always creeps? Or were they halfway decent guys who were corrupted by Trump?
I'm gonna guess they were always creeps. And now I have to block The Flake.
-
As for as "3rd wave feminism" (whatever that is), if it means that men and women respect each other and don't treat each other like filth (as you enjoy doing), then I'm good with that.
3rd wave feminism preaches men and women have the same sexual urges (we don't) and preaches men and women look exactly upon sex the same way -we don't.
All of my friends are married, never divorced including myself. never cheated on our spouses but we still talk about women's bodies. As one friend said I may be old and married but I'm not dead yet.
@Emjay
@musiclady
-
I am curious about the men on this forum who are defending Trump's words and actions.
Were they always creeps? Or were they halfway decent guys who were corrupted by Trump?
I'm gonna guess they were always creeps. And now I have to block The Flake.
What's wrong ? Can't handle the truth? Afraid your husband still looks upon other hot young women with lust..sure he does. All men do. Acting on the lust is another matter.
Mens horniess is what gave us survival of the species.
@Emjay
-
Let's hear it for "feminism" that prefers men who are men and women who are women and (hot) sex between married adults. :beer:
That is totally against what feminism preaches.
@musiclady
-
That is not man talk. That is pervert talk.... If you want to worship a man like that, I guess you can, but don't expect the rest of us to do it.
I just want to point out that the issue here is not worshiping Trump. We're not electing him God, archangel, angel, or Pope, Bishop, or pastor, or even national "daddy". He's being elected to a position to set national policy on a whole bunch of overwhelmingly secular issues. And when it comes time for whomever is elected to nominate judges, select a cabinet, issues executive orders, etc.., whether or not Trump is a pig is going to have much less effect on all of us, including women, then what policies he and Hillary will implement. If you view then as little different than one another on that level, then this won't make a difference.
But if someone does see a significant distinction, then Trump being a pig in a 2005 video will be a miniscule blip in terms of historical relevance when measured about against what happens in this country from 2017-2020.
-
That is totally against what feminism preaches.
@musiclady
So I guess your insult about me was wrong then.
Congrats for recognizing your error. :beer:
-
3rd wave feminism preaches men and women have the same sexual urges (we don't) and preaches men and women look exactly upon sex the same way -we don't.
All of my friends are married, never divorced including myself. never cheated on our spouses but we still talk about women's bodies. As one friend said I may be old and married but I'm not dead yet.
@Emjay
@musiclady
That's what your wife is for.
Marriage 101.
Take the course.
-
I am curious about the men on this forum who are defending Trump's words and actions.
Were they always creeps? Or were they halfway decent guys who were corrupted by Trump?
I'm gonna guess they were always creeps. And now I have to block The Flake.
My guess is that they were creeps before and Trump just made them proud of their creepiness.
I seriously doubt they bragged about their perversion before the stellar example of Donald the Reprobate.
Now they think that demeaning both men and women is part of "political" discussion.
You gotta feel sorry for them. But sorrier for their wives and daughters.....
-
So I guess your insult about me was wrong then.
Congrats for recognizing your error. :beer:
No I was right.
You said: Let's hear it for "feminism" that prefers men who are men and women who are women and (hot) sex between married adults.
1. Feminism wants a gender free society- no male or female. Feminism is trying to tear down classic masculinity and feminity.
2. Feminism is totally against sex in marriage in the classic sense, Ever hear of Slutwalk? No slut shaming? Feminism is for sex outside of marriage.
@musiclady
2.
-
That's what your wife is for.
Marriage 101.
Take the course.
Married women talk about men's bodies in crude ways when they are away from their husbands in private settings among friends. Does not mean they will cheat or do anything improper.
Just because you don't does not make your position the norm because it is not.
@musiclady
-
@mirraflake ,
Uh, exactly what are you trying to accomplish here? I'm honestly curious.
The implication of your argument seems to be that "Trump is no different from most other guys when it comes to women" but that just isn't so. I spent my time in the Marines, and yes, a lot of guys will talk pretty crudely, particularly when young. So will a lot of women. But most guys don't grab women in the crotch, and most guys don't lay naked on the bed of a woman's hotel room as a come-on. Trump engaged in actions that a lot of guys just don't do.
I think there's an important argument to be made in terms of putting this tape in the proper perspective of the election, and not having it overblown, but I don't think that has to include normalizing what Trump said/did.
-
No I was right.
You said: Let's hear it for "feminism" that prefers men who are men and women who are women and (hot) sex between married adults.
1. Feminism wants a gender free society- no male or female. Feminism is trying to tear down classic masculinity and feminity.
2. Feminism is totally against sex in marriage in the classic sense, Ever hear of Slutwalk? No slut shaming? Feminism is for sex outside of marriage.
@musiclady
2.
SO, once again......... THANKS for admitting that your insult of me was a bunch of crap and you don't have any idea what you're saying or doing.
Sometimes when we flail, we don't hit anything but ourselves.
Stop flailing. You look dumb.
Now, I'm not going to participate further in your hijack of this thread, so have a nice nap and we'll see you later......
-
I just want to point out that the issue here is not worshiping Trump. We're not electing him God, archangel, angel, or Pope, Bishop, or pastor, or even national "daddy". He's being elected to a position to set national policy on a whole bunch of overwhelmingly secular issues. And when it comes time for whomever is elected to nominate judges, select a cabinet, issues executive orders, etc.., whether or not Trump is a pig is going to have much less effect on all of us, including women, then what policies he and Hillary will implement. If you view then as little different than one another on that level, then this won't make a difference.
But if someone does see a significant distinction, then Trump being a pig in a 2005 video will be a miniscule blip in terms of historical relevance when measured about against what happens in this country from 2017-2020.
Character matters. That character will be the basis of everything he does.
-
Married women talk about men's bodies in crude ways when they are away from their husbands in private settings among friends. Does not mean they will cheat or do anything improper.
Just because you don't does not make your position the norm because it is not.
@musiclady
In spite of all the ADULT men on this forum countering your claims that ALL men and women behave as pre-pubescent creeps, you keep insisting that your sordid little world is the way things actually work.
You're hurting Donnie's cause here. Stop flailing.
-
@mirraflake ,
The implication of your argument seems to be that "Trump is no different from most other guys when it comes to women" but that just isn't so. I spent my time in the Marines, and yes, a lot of guys will talk pretty crudely, particularly when young. So will a lot of women. But most guys don't grab women in the crotch, and most guys don't lay naked on the bed of a woman's hotel room as a come-on. Trump engaged in actions that a lot of guys just don't do.
I agree I would never hang around men who grab women in the crotch. That was not the point.
The matter I was arguing with @musiclady and @Emjay about is they think men do not talk about women's bodies in crude ways among themselves-they don't think it is normal or common. "My Godly husband would never do that" was their reply. Don't be so sure honey's.
I told them men and women talk about the opposite sex in sexual terms among themselves and they call me a heathen and a terrible husband.
I have been to enough horse shows to see how women discuss men's bodies.
@Maj. Bill Martin
-
I did not get permission from every girl I ever kissed either. Nor did I get permission for each additional step along the way. I mean....do we really need to go into how those things happen in the real world? Are guys supposed to get express permission at each additional level of physical intimacy?
Like I said, I've been grabbed, etc. by women who did not first obtain either express or implied permission. They figured I might be game, and if I wasn't....was it assault? If not, why not?
There's clearly a line...somewhere. I generally think it must be at the point of "what happened when you said no, pulled away, etc." And I'd also say that there is a line crossed if you skip right from 0-60 -- just grabbing a woman in the crotch, without any indication from the woman that she is interested, is a line crossed regardless of whether there was a "no" or not.
The problem I have is that it seems to be something of an all or nothing approach, and that's not realistic.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Somehow I suspect that you didn't make a habit of walking up and planting one on every woman you were attracted to. Right? Women you didn't know, just looked at and thought, "She's hot---let me go kiss her because I'm Major Martin and I can get away with it."
In other words, you weren't a lecherous oaf who refused to respect personal boundaries.
-
Ultimately Trump is innocent until proven guilty. He's at least entitled to that . And I'll leave it at that
@LMAO
He's entitled to that particular presumption in a court of law. Otherwise, we're free to speculate as we wish.
And he admitted it.
-
In spite of all the ADULT men on this forum countering your claims that ALL men and women behave as pre-pubescent creeps, you keep insisting that your sordid little world is the way things actually work.
You're hurting Donnie's cause here. Stop flailing.
All? Only 3 maybe 4 men posters don't agree with me. The others are keeping silent.
@musiclady
-
Almost makes you wonder if that wasn't the plan all along?
I think it was.
-
Do you really think the women Trump has supposedly done this to are innocent little virgins on religious camp in the Big Apple?
No, they are rough and tumble, streetwise, know what and whom they are dealing with and have dealt with guys plenty worse than Trump and shall I say it... most if not all women who flock around Trump are Gold Diggers or want something out of him also. Like people hang out together.
Only one woman has claimed Trump did this to her (Jill Harth?) and she has praised him as a candidate and is supporting him.
@musiclady
@mirraflake, just the other day, one of those hags on "The View" said that the women who accused Bill Clinton were sluts. You're doing something very similar right here. You're basically saying, hey, those chicks knew their way around, so what's the big deal?
He grabbed their crotches; so what?
I guess women who aren't "innocent little virgins at religious camp" should expect their crotches to be fair game for Trump, and keep quiet about it.
-
In spite of all the ADULT men on this forum countering your claims that ALL men and women behave as pre-pubescent creeps, you keep insisting that your sordid little world is the way things actually work.
4 men honey. Not all. Because most have done exactly what I admit to have done.
@musiclady
-
Well then let's solve this. Let's pass a law that men and women have to carry sexual permission slips. They will have to be filled out by both parties and agreed to before any act of intimacy takes place. Some are taking their opposition of Trump and are starting to sound more and more like the left. And their latching on to Rudy Giuliani's words as a sort of lifeline without trying to understand any context
Are some advocating that if a man makes a pass at a woman he's guilty of sexual assault? That seems a little extreme to me.
You are looking at this through the prism of a female. That a man like Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's famous and rich. I get that. I'm just saying there needs to be some context here a little bit. In Trump's own words, he didn't say they don't dare say no or they don't dare turn you in. He just says they let you do it
@LMAO
What are we supposed to look at it through, the prism of a silverback gorilla? My prism, and that of @musiclady, is as valid as yours, so don't condescend and give us that "let's have a little context."
Grabbing a woman's crotch is not "making a pass." Do you get that? It is sexual assault. Giuliani, the former prosecutor, said so himself.
-
So should a gay man get the same leniency when he grabs you in sexual ways? Because a woman is not likely to do it.
Men are stronger than women, generally. They do not have the threat of rape intimidating them from enjoying the freedom to come and go at times and in places of their choosing....generally. Whatever the issues a man has with perverse thoughts, he needs to show self control in his actions. Trumps words were about his actions. He was not a hormonal teenager. And the most vile part of what he said was that his position of power (being a star) gave him special privileges to assault women in a sexual manner. HE IS AN ABUSE OF POWER WAITING TO HAPPEN and should not be given the power of the Presidency. What anyone else has done in the past does not change that fact. Trump is unfit for the presidency.
You may justify yourself and sear your own conscience with the excuse that all men agree with you. But you are just making an excuse for your own guilt. You own it. Your need to drag other men down in the mud with you is revolting.
Do I need to keep repeating myself? What Trump did was wrong..grabbing crotches, forced kisses etc and I would never do it nor be with men who do it.
MY argument was sex talk men do about women among themselves "Wow she has a great a$$" sort of talk. . My point was all men do it...or nearly all. And most women do it also-describe men's bodies is sexual ways among themselves. I got in an argument with music lady and emjay because in their world men never do this sort of thing-they married Godly men... naive. LMAO
That's it the last time I will say this.. jeesh.
@RAT Patrol
-
I just want to point out that the issue here is not worshiping Trump. We're not electing him God, archangel, angel, or Pope, Bishop, or pastor, or even national "daddy". He's being elected to a position to set national policy on a whole bunch of overwhelmingly secular issues. And when it comes time for whomever is elected to nominate judges, select a cabinet, issues executive orders, etc.., whether or not Trump is a pig is going to have much less effect on all of us, including women, then what policies he and Hillary will implement. If you view then as little different than one another on that level, then this won't make a difference.
But if someone does see a significant distinction, then Trump being a pig in a 2005 video will be a miniscule blip in terms of historical relevance when measured about against what happens in this country from 2017-2020.
Trump cannot be trusted. Hillary will advance every liberal issue that comes along. We know that. But Hillary is at least sane. Mean, but sane.
Trump has taken every position on every issue. He has been for (and against) Obama Care (he calls it Trump Care ... or don't leave someone dying in the street care).
He has been for and against abortions (but you know darn well he probably paid for a few)
He has been against employing illegals (but he's employed them a lot)
He wants a wall...maybe... but one with back door so that good workers who will work for him cheaper can get back in.
He thinks his sister ... a huge abortion advocate ... would make a good justice... but he's joking, right?
He admires Putin... but hates Cruz.
His sexual nastiness and predilections are just icing on a terrible cake.
Eat it if you want to but I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. (that is a pole that's exactly ten feet long)
-
4 men honey. Not all. Because most have done exactly what I admit to have done.
Wrong. Gentlemen and real men do not act or talk about women in the manner you pride yourself on. Only little boys who never grew up or grew up to be abusers or rapists pride themselves on that kind of behavior.
-
@LMAO
What are we supposed to look at it through, the prism of a silverback gorilla? My prism, and that of @musiclady, is as valid as yours, so don't condescend and give us that "let's have a little context."
Grabbing a woman's crotch is not "making a pass." Do you get that? It is sexual assault. Giuliani, the former prosecutor, said so himself.
Well, that's why we have laws so we don't become nothing more than silverback gorillas. Those laws are in place to not only protect women from Trump's unwanted advancements but to protect Mr Trump, also.
-
All? Only 3 maybe 4 men posters don't agree with me. The others are keeping silent.
@musiclady
Don't assume they agree with you. Maybe they just think your suggestion is dopey.
-
Well then let's solve this. Let's pass a law that men and women have to carry sexual permission slips. They will have to be filled out by both parties and agreed to before any act of intimacy takes place. Some are taking their opposition of Trump and are starting to sound more and more like the left. And their latching on to Rudy Giuliani's words as a sort of lifeline without trying to understand any context
Are some advocating that if a man makes a pass at a woman he's guilty of sexual assault? That seems a little extreme to me.
You are looking at this through the prism of a female. That a man like Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's famous and rich. I get that. I'm just saying there needs to be some context here a little bit. In Trump's own words, he didn't say they don't dare say no or they don't dare turn you in. He just says they let you do it
Well, that's the point isn't it? Shouldn't you want to learn from women about this subject?
Because we are the ones, by and large, who are the victims of sexual assaults and abuse. As @RAT Patrol has said, WE are the ones who aren't free to do what we want nor go where we please because of the threat of rape and assault. Your gender, as a rule, are the perpetrators of sexual violence and not the victims of it.
This entire subject is about a man, Donald Trump, who uses his power and wealth to assault women (yes, it IS assault to grab a woman's genitals). He's not grabbing men's private parts (probably because most men would deck him. Most of us don't have the strength to do that), so I might turn your comment around on you and say, you're looking at it as a man, and imply that it somehow negates your opinion.
But the fact is that the people Trump has molested are women. Our perspective on the threat and fear of sexual predators is germane to this conversation.
I appreciate very much that you and @Maj. Bill Martin are trying very hard to be fair, and not in any way excusing Trump's horrific behavior, but I think both of you need to be stretched beyond the theoretical and think about the very real threat to women that men like Clinton and Trump pose.
@LMAO
-
So should a gay man get the same leniency when he grabs you in sexual ways? Because a woman is not likely to do it.
Men are stronger than women, generally. They do not have the threat of rape intimidating them from enjoying the freedom to come and go at times and in places of their choosing....generally. Whatever the issues a man has with perverse thoughts, he needs to show self control in his actions. Trumps words were about his actions. He was not a hormonal teenager. And the most vile part of what he said was that his position of power (being a star) gave him special privileges to assault women in a sexual manner. HE IS AN ABUSE OF POWER WAITING TO HAPPEN and should not be given the power of the Presidency. What anyone else has done in the past does not change that fact. Trump is unfit for the presidency.
You may justify yourself and sear your own conscience with the excuse that all men agree with you. But you are just making an excuse for your own guilt. You own it. Your need to drag other men down in the mud with you is revolting.
QFT
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Somehow I suspect that you didn't make a habit of walking up and planting one on every woman you were attracted to. Right? Women you didn't know, just looked at and thought, "She's hot---let me go kiss her because I'm Major Martin and I can get away with it."
In other words, you weren't a lecherous oaf who refused to respect personal boundaries.
No, that's true. What I'm saying is there is a continuum, and I also was addressing the argument that unless someone says "yes", don't. Did Trump think the women were willing in his case? I really don't know.
To be clear, I think Trump is a lecherous toad. But there's a whole world of entertainment/wealth where there are plenty of women who actually are willing to do that with a guy who is sufficiently rich and powerful. So it's not that I think that what he did was okay - it was not. It's the degree of condemnation that is appropriate in the context of a presidential election. That's what I think is fuzzy. Apparently (and I'm just repeating this, I really don't know) the worst incident was involving some woman who likes and supports the guy.
I do have to say that I have actually had the "cold kiss/grope" approach done to me by some women. Literally out of nowhere. Not that it happened a lot, but it happened. And as long as it was a one shot deal, and the "thanks but no thanks" was respected, I didn't think it a big deal. Not that it was okay, just not a federal case. It is different between men and women, though I'm not sure I can articulate why that is or why it should be.
-
Well, that's the point isn't it? Shouldn't you want to learn from women about this subject?
Because we are the ones, by and large, who are the victims of sexual assaults and abuse. As @RAT Patrol has said, WE are the ones who aren't free to do what we want nor go where we please because of the threat of rape and assault. Your gender, as a rule, are the perpetrators of sexual violence and not the victims of it.
This entire subject is about a man, Donald Trump, who uses his power and wealth to assault women (yes, it IS assault to grab a woman's genitals). He's not grabbing men's private parts (probably because most men would deck him. Most of us don't have the strength to do that), so I might turn your comment around on you and say, you're looking at it as a man, and imply that it somehow negates your opinion.
But the fact is that the people Trump has molested are women. Our perspective on the threat and fear of sexual predators is germane to this conversation.
I appreciate very much that you and @Maj. Bill Martin are trying very hard to be fair, and not in any way excusing Trump's horrific behavior, but I think both of you need to be stretched beyond the theoretical and think about the very real threat to women that men like Clinton and Trump pose.
@LMAO
@musiclady
But the legal system doesn't work that way. It's supposed to be fact based. Even Rudy Guliani(sp) despite his statement, would know that in order to charge and try someone for sexual assault, his office would have to conduct an investigation. Questions would be asked of all involved. And I can guarantee one of the questions asked would be of the woman if she told him no or resisted any of his advances.
Trump is a pig and as far as wooing women goes, he's no Casanova. But that isn't a crime. May kill your electoral chances. But it's not a prison sentence
-
No, that's true. What I'm saying is there is a continuum, and I also was addressing the argument that unless someone says "yes", don't. Did Trump think the women were willing in his case? I really don't know.
To be clear, I think Trump is a lecherous toad. But there's a whole world of entertainment/wealth where there are plenty of women who actually are willing to do that with a guy who is sufficiently rich and powerful. So it's not that I think that what he did was okay - it was not. It's the degree of condemnation that is appropriate in the context of a presidential election. That's what I think is fuzzy. Apparently (and I'm just repeating this, I really don't know) the worst incident was involving some woman who likes and supports the guy.
I do have to say that I have actually had the "cold kiss/grope" approach done to me by some women. Literally out of nowhere. Not that it happened a lot, but it happened. And as long as it was a one shot deal, and the "thanks but no thanks" was respected, I didn't think it a big deal. Not that it was okay, just not a federal case. It is different between men and women, though I'm not sure I can articulate why that is or why it should be.
Power.
Society, in general, agrees with protecting the weak from the strong.
(Except, of course, in the case of abortion where the weak can be dismembered by the strong so a woman can go to the Bahamas........... but that's a subject for a different thread.....)
-
Well, that's why we have laws so we don't become nothing more than silverback gorillas. Those laws are in place to not only protect women from Trump's unwanted advancements but to protect Mr Trump, also.
@LMAO
Yes, let's protect "Mr. Trump", by all means.
-
I appreciate very much that you and @Maj. Bill Martin are trying very hard to be fair, and not in any way excusing Trump's horrific behavior, but I think both of you need to be stretched beyond the theoretical and think about the very real threat to women that men like Clinton and Trump pose.
Just guessing here, but I suspect @LMAO is a lawyer as well, and for the most part, we are the most hesitant group on earth to reach conclusions unless we think we have all the relevant facts. So to address this point with Bill Clinton, I see a line between Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick. With Jones, he was a scuzzy sexual harasser, but there wasn't anything really criminal. He did take "no" for an answer. With Broaddrick, completely different story.
Trump seems to have been at the Paula Jones level of sleaze during that period. While I think that is disgusting, I don't think it rises to the level of a disqualifer given who he is facing.
-
@musiclady
But the legal system doesn't work that way. It's supposed to be fact based. Even Rudy Guliani(sp) despite his statement, would know that in order to charge and try someone for sexual assault, his office would have to conduct an investigation. Questions would be asked of all involved. And I can guarantee one of the questions asked would be of the woman if she told him no or resisted any of his advances.
Trump is a pig and as far as wooing women goes, he's no Casanova. But that isn't a crime. May kill your electoral chances. But it's not a prison sentence
I hope some of the women he's groped press charges and his power and wealth doesn't protect him from being charged, or convicted, as it did with Bill Clinton, his twin.
Of course, his power and wealth keeps women from accusing him, and most likely protects him from being taken to court, but it's really important that some of the women he's molested start speaking up now that it's been revealed that he's molested them.
If he has done what he has bragged about, he should be in prison. Serial molesters are dangerous people.
btw, if my gender is irrelevant to the legal discussion, why did you bring it up other than to dismiss my opinion as invalid? Just curious.
-
@LMAO
Yes, let's protect "Mr. Trump", by all means.
Well despite how we feel about him, he is still an American citizen with Constitutional protections.Fact is, he is still only accused.
-
Power.
Society, in general, agrees with protecting the weak from the strong.
That works if the man is using/threatening his physical strength. It doesn't explain it if he's not. No real difference between a quick grope by a girl or guy in terms of "power" in a lot of situations. Not that I don't think there's a difference -- it's just that I don't think it comes down to just that.
-
Just guessing here, but I suspect @LMAO is a lawyer as well, and for the most part, we are the most hesitant group on earth to reach conclusions unless we think we have all the relevant facts. So to address this point with Bill Clinton, I see a line between Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick. With Jones, he was a scuzzy sexual harasser, but there wasn't anything really criminal. He did take "no" for an answer. With Broaddrick, completely different story.
Trump seems to have been at the Paula Jones level of sleaze during that period. While I think that is disgusting, I don't think it rises to the level of a disqualifer given who he is facing.
That's a valid opinion. But how do you know there's not a Juanita Broaddrick out there who has been intimidated and is afraid to speak up?
I can't recall, but how long was it before Juanita had the courage to tell her story? It was long after he raped her, IIRC.
The two men are cut from the same filthy, narcissistic, vulgar, misogynist cloth.
I would actually be surprised based on what he has confessed to publicly, that he hasn't gone much farther with other women.
btw, I suppose it's good that lawyers are hesitant to convict on video confessions, but at the same time, the real world involves more than just legalese and theory. It's good to get some compassion into the discussion as well. These women have been molested, and I'm sure many have been traumatized by his filth.
Don't forget about them as you discuss the theory of how the law works.
-
Well despite how we feel about him, he is still an American citizen with Constitutional protections. Fact is, he is still only accused.
By his own confession on videotape.
Makes a difference, doesn't it counselor? ^-^
-
That works if the man is using/threatening his physical strength. It doesn't explain it if he's not. No real difference between a quick grope by a girl or guy in terms of "power" in a lot of situations. Not that I don't think there's a difference -- it's just that I don't think it comes down to just that.
How does it make no difference if the man is presumably stronger? And especially if his power is also in his wealth and position?
Feels like an excuse to make the reality of what Trump did go away, and it's not working.
-
I don't understand all this nit picking to attempt to excuse Trump's words and behavior.
He's not on trial in a court of law. He's on trial in the public perception of whether he's fit to be president.
Most women think he is not. Take that to your locker room and smoke it.
-
I don't understand all this nit picking to attempt to excuse Trump's words and behavior.
He's not on trial in a court of law. He's on trial in the public perception of whether he's fit to be president.
Most women think he is not. Take that to your locker room and smoke it.
I think we have two male lawyers picking the nits here.
In the scheme of things, the nits don't matter. Donald is a pervert and a molester, and that DOES matter.
-
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
[/quote]
I heard that the UK has first right of repossession, since we can't seem to govern ourselves.......
-
All? Only 3 maybe 4 men posters don't agree with me. The others are keeping silent.
@musiclady
Well, If I'm not on the disagree list, put me there.
Actually, I think they are counting revolutions you are making contorting logic while you tell us what a great husband you are but we all talk trash all the time like you do. If your eyes aren't brown, pal, you're a quart low.
If you think treating teenage pageant contestants like property, laying naked on pageant contestants motel beds, and playing 'grab and grope' with married women (other than your own wife) is okay, then go ahead and tell us how much saint donny is a great guy.
At issue here is his penchant for treating the 'little people' like they are his property to do with as he sees fit for his amusement.
If you want to give someone like that power, I hope it bites you where you sit.
Now do us both a favor and quit insisting everyone acts like a boorish lout.
-
That works if the man is using/threatening his physical strength. It doesn't explain it if he's not. No real difference between a quick grope by a girl or guy in terms of "power" in a lot of situations. Not that I don't think there's a difference -- it's just that I don't think it comes down to just that.
Most of the men who do a quick grope are doing it to assert dominance.
Women do it to get a guy's attention.
bonobos without branches...
-
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
I heard that the UK has first right of repossession, since we can't seem to govern ourselves.......
There are plenty of tribes of folks around who would argue with that.
-
Well, If I'm not on the disagree list, put me there.
Actually, I think they are counting revolutions you are making contorting logic while you tell us what a great husband you are but we all talk trash all the time like you do. If your eyes aren't brown, pal, you're a quart low.
Now do us both a favor and quit insisting everyone acts like a boorish lout.
Put me on the disagree list.
He has done the best one legged duck imitation I have ever seen. I think If his read what he has posted she'd punch him right between the running lights.
-
:silly:
I laughed for a longtime yesterday over a couple of your posts. It was the one where you asked if you could break the rules for just a minute....and then one where you said "thank God...and greyhound..." or something like that. LOL.
Thanks, glad you got a laugh. We need all the laughs we can get.
-
Well, If I'm not on the disagree list, put me there.
Actually, I think they are counting revolutions you are making contorting logic while you tell us what a great husband you are but we all talk trash all the time like you do. If your eyes aren't brown, pal, you're a quart low.
If you think treating teenage pageant contestants like property, laying naked on pageant contestants motel beds, and playing 'grab and grope' with married women (other than your own wife) is okay, then go ahead and tell us how much saint donny is a great guy.
At issue here is his penchant for treating the 'little people' like they are his property to do with as he sees fit for his amusement.
If you want to give someone like that power, I hope it bites you where you sit.
Now do us both a favor and quit insisting everyone acts like a boorish lout.
Yes. Good post. That person claims all the guys agree with him. They do not. You are proof and all the good guys in my life who would never behave that way are proof also.
-
@jpsb
Instead of trying to wiggle his words around and spin an implication from them, just take them as he said them, straight out, and use your own common sense.
He said he kissed women without permission, and then said he could do anything, even grabbing their crotches. That action is an extension of the kissing, of the liberties he believed he could take. "They let me do it" means they let him get away with it. Now tell me, if he didn't ask permission to kiss them, do you think he asked if he could grope them? Do you think gropers are in the habit of doing so?
Rudy Giuliani, former prosecutor and Trump lackey, said that what Trump described was sexual assault.
As for your list of things Trump claims he'll do, there's no evidence to believe he'll make good on any of that---in fact, the contrary is true, since much of it has been walked back already. Yet we're supposed to take him at his word when he makes promises, but not when he admits to sexually assaulting women.
I'm really disappointed in conservative men who give lip service to protecting & honoring women while defending that disgusting, slimy, creepy old pervert. If that liar's empty promises are "much more important" to you than his assaults on women, I guess it's good we have that out in the open. But in the future don't pretend that you give a damn about women, all right? And conservative women won't bother standing up for you anymore, either.
NY Times Gets Punked=> Fake Groping Victim Used Velvet Underground Song to Describe Trumped-Up Attack (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/ny-times-gets-punked-fake-groping-victim-used-velvet-underground-song-describe-trumped-attack/)
Donald Trump has lived in a fish bowl almost his entire adult life, until he took on the Clinton's there has never been even a hint of sexual harassment or any kind of assault. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team?
Issues are more important to me than unproven more then likely fake allegations. But even if true Trump misdeeds pale in comparison to the crimes we know Hillary has committed. The choice is Hillary, Trump or sit this election out. I'm not going to sit out the most important election of my lifetime, I'm for Trump, not Hillary.
-
NY Times Gets Punked=> Fake Groping Victim Used Velvet Underground Song to Describe Trumped-Up Attack (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/ny-times-gets-punked-fake-groping-victim-used-velvet-underground-song-describe-trumped-attack/)
Donald Trump has lived in a fish bowl almost his entire adult life, until he took on the Clinton's there has never been even a hint of sexual harassment or any kind of assault. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team?
Issues are more important to me than unproven more then likely fake allegations. But even if true Trump misdeeds pale in comparison to the crimes we know Hillary has committed. The choice is Hillary, Trump or sit this election out. I'm not going to sit out the most important election of my lifetime, I'm for Trump, not Hillary.
This is fake.
-
I am curious about the men on this forum who are defending Trump's words and actions.
Were they always creeps? Or were they halfway decent guys who were corrupted by Trump?
I'm gonna guess they were always creeps. And now I have to block The Flake.
Oh poor baby, everything is going to be OK @Emjay
(http://kingofwallpapers.com/crying-girl-images/crying-girl-images-011.jpg)
-
I'm not going to sit out the most important election of my lifetime, I'm for Trump, not Hillary.
The most important election of my lifetime occurred in Cleveland three months ago. Conservatives lost. The election a month from now is merely window dressing. Afterwards, a NY Liberal will become our next President.
-
I'm not going to sit out the most important election of my lifetime,
This is funny, because I don't know a single person who is "sitting out" this election.
Just because we can't vote for corrupt leftists, Clinton and Trump, it doesn't mean that anyone is "sitting" anything out.
And if this is the most important election in our lifetime, why did a plurality of "Republicans" force a liberal deviant on the majority of us who actually wanted to WIN the election?
Why did Trump primary voters insist that we allow Hillary to win this most important election when we could have beaten her with at least 4 other candidates who actually were decent people?
Why did you guys throw this election away??
-
The most important election of my lifetime occurred in Cleveland three months ago. Conservatives lost. The election a month from now is merely window dressing. Afterwards, a NY Liberal will become our next President.
And it is Trump primary supporters who have forced that garbage down our throats.
-
All? Only 3 maybe 4 men posters don't agree with me. The others are keeping silent.
The primary reason that I have not chimed in is because I am unable to focus on anything else besides the glaring stupidity of Donald Trump. There are only two explanations here. Either:
- Donald trump is the biggest fool of a candidate in US history
- Donald Trump is colluding with the Democrats to help them win the White House plus as many Congressional seats as possible this November.
-
The primary reason that I have not chimed in is because I am unable to focus on anything else besides the glaring stupidity of Donald Trump. There are only two explanations here. Either:
- Donald trump is the biggest fool of a candidate in US history
- Donald Trump is colluding with the Democrats to help them win the White House plus as many Congressional seats as possible this November.
3. All of the above..
-
Apparently we shall all slide down into the darkness because the Nation has become too immature to govern itself.
I heard that the UK has first right of repossession, since we can't seem to govern ourselves.......
Once Hillary is in office the Muslim influence in this country will be overwhelming and alarming. Sharia law will be taking hold as it is already slowly slipping into our society. Here's just an example of Sharia law:
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html
-
This is funny, because I don't know a single person who is "sitting out" this election.
Just because we can't vote for corrupt leftists, Clinton and Trump, it doesn't mean that anyone is "sitting" anything out.
And if this is the most important election in our lifetime, why did a plurality of "Republicans" force a liberal deviant on the majority of us who actually wanted to WIN the election?
Why did Trump primary voters insist that we allow Hillary to win this most important election when we could have beaten her with at least 4 other candidates who actually were decent people?
Why did you guys throw this election away??
Barring some horrific unforeseen event either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be elected President of the USA. Voting 3rd party is sitting out the most important election of your life time. Elect Hillary and you give the country over to corrupt fascist globalists and you will never get it back. Plus she will most likely get us into a hot war with Russia over Syria. Hot as in 10 million degrees Kelvin.
@musiclady
-
This is funny, because I don't know a single person who is "sitting out" this election.
Why did you guys throw this election away??
@musiclady
It is you NeverTrumper that are throwing the election to Hillary. Go visit Paul Ryan's facebook page to see what everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumpers.
https://www.facebook.com/paulryanwi/ (https://www.facebook.com/paulryanwi/)
-
Once Hillary is in office the Muslim influence in this country will be overwhelming and alarming. Sharia law will be taking hold as it is already slowly slipping into our society. Here's just an example of Sharia law:
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html
American women below is your future once Hillary is elected. It is already happening in Europe.
(http://s3.india.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/muslim-women.jpg)
-
I agree I would never hang around men who grab women in the crotch. That was not the point.
The matter I was arguing with @musiclady and @Emjay about is they think men do not talk about women's bodies in crude ways among themselves-they don't think it is normal or common. "My Godly husband would never do that" was their reply. Don't be so sure honey's.
I told them men and women talk about the opposite sex in sexual terms among themselves and they call me a heathen and a terrible husband.
I have been to enough horse shows to see how women discuss men's bodies.
@Maj. Bill Martin
@mirraflake
I happen to know that @musiclady is a very nice, older lady, from a generation that generally upheld at least public standards of decorum and behavior better than those of us that are younger. Whatever many men may have said to each other in conversation over the course of their lives, I think it is beneath us to essentially say "you're husband is a dirty old man just like the rest of us." I'm not sure what other spin to put on it other than to say it's just the kind of thing we should not say to such a lady even if you believe it may be true.
And I'd add that while there certainly are many men (and women) who have talked in fairly crude terms about the opposite se, there are also some who do not, and her husband may well be one of those gentlemen with a bit more decorum than most of the rest of us. I think bringing someone's spouse into a conversation and imputing lewd conduct to them is just...not right.
-
This is fake.
A fake story in the GateTrumpway Pundit??? My stars!!!! Next thing, you'll tell me that Breitbart makes up phony stuff... :silly:
-
@musiclady
It is you NeverTrumper that are throwing the election to Hillary.
IT IS NOT! A "NeverTrumper" is a cute name used to paint everybody not for Trump with a broad brush! In my town there is more political talk going on than I have ever seen before ... People actually want to vote for Trump but HE keeps "throwing the election to Hillary". The most common comment I hear from people .... "These are the worst two people to ever run for president!!" It is Trump that is throwing this away. Just about the time people believe they could vote for him he opens his mouth and makes some stupid comment that alienates them. Trump is not a trustworthy man. People recognize that.
-
Barring some horrific unforeseen event either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be elected President of the USA. Voting 3rd party is sitting out the most important election of your life time. Elect Hillary and you give the country over to corrupt fascist globalists and you will never get it back. Plus she will most likely get us into a hot war with Russia over Syria. Hot as in 10 million degrees Kelvin.
@musiclady
Except I'm not "sitting" anything out. I'm voting for a candidate who reflects conservative values, both political and moral.
What I am not doing is voting for a candidate who doesn't share a single value I have as an American, or as a Conservative.
And what you fail to recognize, is that it's Trump himself who is throwing this election to Hillary, and those people who voted for him, knowing full well that he was a compatriot of Hillary's are the ones responsible for the fiasco we are dealing with now.
-
Except I'm not "sitting" anything out. I'm voting for a candidate who reflects conservative values, both political and moral.
What I am not doing is voting for a candidate who doesn't share a single value I have as an American, or as a Conservative.
And what you fail to recognize, is that it's Trump himself who is throwing this election to Hillary, and those people who voted for him, knowing full well that he was a compatriot of Hillary's are the ones responsible for the fiasco we are dealing with now.
QFT
-
@mirraflake
I happen to know that @musiclady is a very nice, older lady, from a generation that generally upheld at least public standards of decorum and behavior better than those of us that are younger. Whatever many men may have said to each other in conversation over the course of their lives, I think it is beneath us to essentially say "you're husband is a dirty old man just like the rest of us." I'm not sure what other spin to put on it other than to say it's just the kind of thing we should not say to such a lady even if you believe it may be true.
And I'd add that while there certainly are many men (and women) who have talked in fairly crude terms about the opposite se, there are also some who do not, and her husband may well be one of those gentlemen with a bit more decorum than most of the rest of us. I think bringing someone's spouse into a conversation and imputing lewd conduct to them is just...not right.
Thank you, sir!
The idea that this guy presumes that there are no men who don't trash women in conversation or behavior is frightening to me.
You're right that I am older, and my husband is obviously older as well, but he was a gentleman even when he was young. Having that young whippersnapper accuse many fine men of being as coarse and disrespectful toward women as he is for me is stunning. What kind of arrogance does it take for a kid to do that?? What need to justify one's own bad behavior is it that you smear your entire gender in order to make yourself feel better about yourself?
I know scores upon scores of other men (young ones included - like our sons, who reflect the dignity and honor of their father) who respect women enough to not objectify them and abuse them.
Anyway, thanks again for sticking up for me........ and the truth.
@Maj. Bill Martin
-
@musiclady
It is you NeverTrumper that are throwing the election to Hillary. Go visit Paul Ryan's facebook page to see what everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumpers.
https://www.facebook.com/paulryanwi/ (https://www.facebook.com/paulryanwi/)
You use the term "NeverTrumper" as a dirty word, and even though I have never once called myself that, I find it amusing that you think that principled conservatives are actually responsible for electing Hillary.
We're not. TRUMP is.
He is the worst, most vile, least likeable, most corrupt liberal RINO in history.
Everything he has done has enabled Hillary. Everything he has done has mocked conservative values. Everything he has done reflects the FACT that he is a hard core liberal.
Blaming those of us who won't tolerate vile liberalism for electing Hillary is the utmost deceit or self-delusion.
Trump will lose because of Trump. And the only reason we have him (who was a known LOSER from day ONE) is because of the people who blindly followed him in the primary.
This is the Trump lovers mess, and trying to deflect the blame to people who believe in integrity and conservatism is a bunch of hooey.
-
I'm having trouble finding it. Does anyone have Rush Limbaugh's "Character Matters" article from around 98?
Very germane to today.
-
@musiclady
It is you NeverTrumper that are throwing the election to Hillary. Go visit Paul Ryan's facebook page to see what everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumpers.
(https://img.geocaching.com/cache/large/7a531132-d090-4fb9-ba8d-511b16b3ec17.jpg)Wait, I thought Donny didn't need us, didn't want us, and we were insignificant.
Now, if he loses it's our fault?
No way, Jose.
You people insisted on him, even though you were told we COULD NOT and WOULD NOT support him.
He's yours, all yours.
You own this disaster.
-
I guess it depends on who you talk to. I have heard Canada, Kenya, and even Indonesia.
The "Kenya" thing was a red herring. The known logistics simply do not work for him to have been born in Kenya. The only plausible possibilities are that he was either born in Hawaii, or he was born near the North Western border with Canada, possibly in Canada itself.
Personally I think there is good circumstantial evidence to indicate he wasn't born in Hawaii, but was instead born either in Canada, or NorthWest Washington State.
Also that Stanley Ann Dunham's lack of years in residence after the age of 14 made her ability to confer citizenship a question.
That is only an issue if he was born in a foreign country. If he was born inside the US, it is of no matter.
And then, there is the 'birth certificate' a layerd electronic construct pretty widely accepted as bogus. Ask Loretta Fuddy about that. (Oops, you can't. The M.E. said she died of an arrhythmia even though she had never been diagnosed with any heart condition at all, after surviving (with all others on board) ditching a plane between islands. (She ties into the Subud Cult, too, which goes back to Indonesia, but that's another story). So, no, that issue was far from agreed upon.
Lord Monckton offered what I regarded as the simplest proof that the document is forged. Typewrites space letters at exact distances on a page. On this document, when you mark off the correct spacing on a line with supposedly typewritten text, the letters do not fall in the correct spacing. The lines also do not space correctly in the vertical dimension.
These sort of spacing errors are only possible on a typewriter if you release the paper from the platen and move it manually. Something that no one would have any reason to do while typing an official document.
But the Cruz issue did hit the press, and the courts before Trump got the nomination--in fact, it was one of Trump's weapons aimed at Cruz.
This was during the time the press was trying to help Trump. They felt Trump's more outrageous behavior would help divide the social conservatives from the rest. Of course much of our side fell right into their trap.
And yet, there he was, still on the ballot.I honestly think Cruz versus Hillary would have come down on Cruz as victor. After all, if half the people who claimed to have supported Cruz , but are now supporting Trump in desperation actually supported Cruz, he should have won.
They would have portrayed Cruz as both a Right wing Dictator and a Cotton Mather religious fanatic. They would have also accused him of being a hypocrite and pushed those Adultery allegations. They would have said he hated poor people because he tried to shut down the government. And so on.
People think Cruz would have been an easy win because that's what they wish to believe, but I do not believe they are accurately taking into account all the factors we would be facing.
The fact is, elections are mostly at the mercy of Liberal Democrats who live and work in New York, and control almost all access to broadcast information. So long as they have the microphones and cameras and we don't, we will never be able to confidently advance our candidates.
-
I would like to hear from some of these "conservative" men excusing Trump's behavior here.....
This is sadly, evidence of how childish America has become. We have a woman who has a history of circumnavigating the law for corrupt purposes, who deliberately set up a email system so that it would be under her control and not answerable to the Freedom of Information act, and who used that system to enrich herself by selling influence as the top State Department officials, and people want to talk about profanity and groping?
Bill Clinton got a total pass on multiple rapes, adulteries, and various examples of far worse behavior than speaking profanity and unwanted touching, and we are to believe that the media is upset that Trump talked nasty?
The Russians are calling their children home. They have moved ballistic missiles into the Baltic region, they have informed us they will shoot down any American aircraft in Syria (why are we meddling with Syria?) and Russians have said we will likely be at war if Hillary gets elected, yet we want to talk about this stupid recording of Trump and what it implies?
God! What kind of stupid people are we?
-
This is sadly, evidence of how childish America has become. We have a woman who has a history of circumnavigating the law for corrupt purposes, who deliberately set up a email system so that it would be under her control and not answerable to the Freedom of Information act, and who used that system to enrich herself by selling influence as the top State Department officials, and people want to talk about profanity and groping?
Bill Clinton got a total pass on multiple rapes, adulteries, and various examples of far worse behavior than speaking profanity and unwanted touching, and we are to believe that the media is upset that Trump talked nasty?
The Russians are calling their children home. They have moved ballistic missiles into the Baltic region, they have informed us they will shoot down any American aircraft in Syria (why are we meddling with Syria?) and Russians have said we will likely be at war if Hillary gets elected, yet we want to talk about this stupid recording of Trump and what it implies?
God! What kind of stupid people are we?
The kind who can be led by the nose, apparently.
Great points, and you could have added the Supreme Court, immigration, and everything else to the list. A year from now, which of the things you described will actually be having a bigger impact on our lives? The trash Trump said in 2005, or what Hillary will be doing in office?
It's like watching a train wreck, and there's apparently not a damned thing we can do to stop it.
-
If the law stated "All in opposition to this law shall be summarily shot." there might be a better course of action.
The "law" in question was Obamacare. Refusing to mitigate it's worst attributes would have had the public screaming for it's repeal, and left them in a foul mood toward's Obama. Our side is politically tone deaf. (Or willing helpers of the Democrats.)
I don't think you understand that a number of us think that the brakes are already cut, the train is going to wreck either way, and the slate we're looking at indicates the fire is already going. We are just not going to pour more gasoline on it.
YMMV
Has it occurred to none of you that most of this mess was caused by radicalized "baby boomers" and that this wave of idiocy may pass if we can hold things together long enough for the baby boomer radicals to become feeble or die off?
Hillary does not look like someone who will be healthy enough to push an agenda much longer. There are all sorts of signs of feeble health from her. The True Believers of the Radical sixties are slowly dropping off, and once these radicals can no longer offer their communist/socialist ideas, we may get a chance at a reset back to Burkean/Smith philosophy.
Letting Hillary have power IS the gasoline. She will fill the courts and bureacracies with like minded radical kooks, and we will suffer even more under their baleful power.
-
He's yours, all yours.
You own this disaster.
Fine sit on your hands as Hillary kills the country. Your country needs you and you refuse to answer the call, fine example of "principled conservative" the NeverTrumpers are. Even Ted Cruz came to his senses and supports Donald Trump.
-
Fine sit on your hands as Hillary kills the country. Your country needs you and you refuse to answer the call, fine example of "principled conservative" the NeverTrumpers are. Even Ted Cruz came to his senses and supports Donald Trump.
NO one is sitting on their hands by not voting for either Trump or Hillary.
And I repeat........... Trump is losing this all by his onesies. It is his corruption, lewdness, dishonesty and overall nastiness that has made people of all stripes of political persuasion turn AGAINST him.
Many, may life long Republicans have said "I cannot vote for EITHER" and are not voting Republican for the first time in their lives.
THAT is TRUMP'S fault.......... not theirs.
At least be honest enough to recognize that he is responsible for what people think of him. People who have been Republicans for more than half a century aren't voting for him. Not their fault. HIS.
-
Even Ted Cruz came to his senses and supports Donald Trump.
Really? When did he say that?
Link please.
-
Really? When did he say that?
Link please.
The people who hated Cruz continue to lie about him even in their faux praise.
"Reluctantly voting for" is not even CLOSE to "supporting."
The first can be reluctantly understood (though it's confusing at best).......... the second, NEVER.
-
Really? When did he say that?
Link please.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/
how come no one ever uses google?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/
how come no one ever uses google?
The rest of us ALL know what he said.
And that is very different from "supporting" Trump as you claimed.
There are many people who feel they have no choice but to vote for Trump, even though they despise him, because they perceive Hillary to be worse.
They are not supporting him. They are voting for a guy they can't stand.
I understand, though disagree with doing so. "Support" for Trump comes only from the ill informed.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/
how come no one ever uses google?
First off…you made the claim…it's on YOU to back it up.
Secondly…
"After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump," Cruz wrote in a Facebook post.
Where is the endorsement in that quote from your link?
I don't see anything that says he's going to support Donald J Trump.
Just because you Trumpkins and the MSM WISH Senator Cruz had said those words…doesn't make it true.
So you need to either find a link where Cruz makes the statement that "I'm endorsing Donald Trump for President" or "I will do everything I can to help Donald Trump get elected" then you and the rest of the idiots need to quit spouting this blatant falsehood.
-
This is sadly, evidence of how childish America has become. We have a woman who has a history of circumnavigating the law for corrupt purposes, who deliberately set up a email system so that it would be under her control and not answerable to the Freedom of Information act, and who used that system to enrich herself by selling influence as the top State Department officials, and people want to talk about profanity and groping?
Bill Clinton got a total pass on multiple rapes, adulteries, and various examples of far worse behavior than speaking profanity and unwanted touching, and we are to believe that the media is upset that Trump talked nasty?
The Russians are calling their children home. They have moved ballistic missiles into the Baltic region, they have informed us they will shoot down any American aircraft in Syria (why are we meddling with Syria?) and Russians have said we will likely be at war if Hillary gets elected, yet we want to talk about this stupid recording of Trump and what it implies?
God! What kind of stupid people are we?
No one is giving Hillary a 'pass' except the FBI and DOJ.
The media said the whole Bill Clinton thing was 'just about sex', and got away with that.
Apparently, Trump's actions are supposed to get a pass because of Bill?
But that would leave us with more of the same, just a different letter after the name.
As for the media, they are headquartered in NYC, and a prime first-strike target. Maybe they should think about that. Maybe they sent their children to some remote location, too.
When it comes right down to it, though, of all the people in the country, the GOP selected this man as their champion to do battle with the ideologues of the Left and to represent America on the world stage. Apparently they don't have that much to fight over, as he spends most of his time attacking Conservatives, right here at home, when he isn't busy groping for excuses.
Regardless of electoral outcome, the Russian children will be home and we will have a New York Liberal at the helm who has never served a day in uniform.
You tell me which one has the better understanding of our military capabilities.
-
Most normal men talk about women-"man she has a nice a##" type of talk amongst themselves
Yes they do! But that is a FAR different thing than what Trump did and bragged about doing. I would never even contemplate doing something like that and don't have anyone in my circle of friends who would.
-
No one is giving Hillary a 'pass' except the FBI and DOJ.
The media said the whole Bill Clinton thing was 'just about sex', and got away with that.
Apparently, Trump's actions are supposed to get a pass because of Bill?
But that would leave us with more of the same, just a different letter after the name.
As for the media, they are headquartered in NYC, and a prime first-strike target. Maybe they should think about that. Maybe they sent their children to some remote location, too.
When it comes right down to it, though, of all the people in the country, the GOP selected this man as their champion to do battle with the ideologues of the Left and to represent America on the world stage. Apparently they don't have that much to fight over, as he spends most of his time attacking Conservatives, right here at home, when he isn't busy groping for excuses.
Regardless of electoral outcome, the Russian children will be home and we will have a New York Liberal at the helm who has never served a day in uniform.
You tell me which one has the better understanding of our military capabilities.
Ding Ding Ding…we have teh winnah!
-
You tell me which one has the better understanding of our military capabilities.
Well, I'll tell you which one will do more to actively undermine our military capabilities. Here's a hint - it's going to be the one who panders the most to feminist and LGBT groups who want to use the military as a vehicle to effect social change. The warriors will be forced out in favor of those who 1) tell the Administration exactly what it wants to hear, and 2) elevate the leftist social agenda to a position of primary.
And once the warriors are forced out, get sick of it and leave, or never join up in the first place because of what is being done, you can't undo that damage.
-
First off…you made the claim…it's on YOU to back it up.
Secondly…
Where is the endorsement in that quote from your link?
I don't see anything that says he's going to support Donald J Trump.
Just because you Trumpkins and the MSM WISH Senator Cruz had said those words…doesn't make it true.
So you need to either find a link where Cruz makes the statement that "I'm endorsing Donald Trump for President" or "I will do everything I can to help Donald Trump get elected" then you and the rest of the idiots need to quit spouting this blatant falsehood.
They can always get that Longmire fellow to post misleading, edited photos of Cruz on the phone that make it look like he's calling for Trump when he's calling for Republicans.
Partial "truth" (i.e. deceit) is their MO.
It's their desperation making them say and do these things. They know by now they've backed a LOSER, and are just lashing out.
-
I'm having trouble finding it. Does anyone have Rush Limbaugh's "Character Matters" article from around 98?
Very germane to today.
@AbaraXas
Yes, I remember during the 92 election and throughout the 90's on how "Character Matters" according to Rush and others on talk radio. Well after this election they better shut their pie hole about character. When you support a candidate like Trump, you can't complain about the Clinton's character.
-
They can always get that Longmire fellow to post misleading, edited photos of Cruz on the phone that make it look like he's calling for Trump when he's calling for Republicans.
Partial "truth" (i.e. deceit) is their MO.
It's their desperation making them say and do these things. They know by now they've backed a LOSER, and are just lashing out.
You'd expect that from the Liberals…but not from someone on a Conservative board like this one.
-
Well, I'll tell you which one will do more to actively undermine our military capabilities. Here's a hint - it's going to be the one who panders the most to feminist and LGBT groups who want to use the military as a vehicle to effect social change. The warriors will be forced out in favor of those who 1) tell the Administration exactly what it wants to hear, and 2) elevate the leftist social agenda to a position of primary.
And once the warriors are forced out, get sick of it and leave, or never join up in the first place because of what is being done, you can't undo that damage.
There are reasons to oppose Trump but Hillary's superior grasp of our military capabilities is not one.
-
@AbaraXas
Yes, I remember during the 92 election and throughout the 90's on how "Character Matters" according to Rush and others on talk radio. Well after this election they better shut their pie hole about character. When you support a candidate like Trump, you can't complain about the Clinton's character.
I feel compelled to point out that in both 1992 and 1996, you had a man with tremendous character flaws running against military veterans of outstanding character. In 2016, both candidates have very serious character flaws, so choosing between them on that basis does not present the clear choice it presented when Rush wrote that article.
-
A little warning to the Trump die hard supporters...
There a lot of reluctant Trump voters (like me) who may change their mind at the last minute (like me), who will not vote for Trump cause of your attitude towards other people.
The sad fact is this: The fact that are you still trying to convince people to vote for Trump right now doesn't say much. Also if you want people for you candidate yelling and screaming at people is not helping. Also calling people names is not cool.
-
You'd expect that from the Liberals…but not from someone on a Conservative board like this one.
Obviously, everyone posting on a conservative forum is not a conservative.
Liberal tactics abound among Trump support here.
-
Fine sit on your hands as Hillary kills the country. Your country needs you and you refuse to answer the call, fine example of "principled conservative" the NeverTrumpers are. Even Ted Cruz came to his senses and supports Donald Trump.
I won't sit on my hands. That much I guarantee you.
I will be doing all I can to bring the STUPID Party to it's belated demise. I WILL be voting Constitution Party for a platform that is what the GOP should have been supporting these last four decades I have been a member. I will vote down ticket based on the candidate. I am under no obligation to vote for anyone but whom my conscience deems worthy of my vote, and if none meet my standards, none will get it.
Ted Cruz is honoring his pledge. I made no such agreement.
This year, of all years, the voters of the GOP had an opportunity to turn the tide, and they blew it. Despite repeated exhortations to do their due diligence, GOP voters ignored the past of the man they nominated. Now that those nuggets are coming back up the pipe, (even though we tried to tell people they were down there), we're supposed to support what we have been saying was the wrong person for months or longer?
NO. Not only NO, But HELL NO. Now the GOP, if it can get enough people elected to hang on to either the House, Senate, or both (despite fighting their own top of ticket candidate), gets one last chance to redeem itself and stop Hillary, or continue it's swirl around the drainpipe of history.
I am no longer a member of the GOP. I WILL vote my conscience. All of YOU who supported your candidate have the option of voting for the same guy I am (see graphic below), unless you live in Oklahoma. The rest of the States and D.C., he is either on the ballot or a write-in. That would be a game-changer.
But you won't. You'll stay on the Plantation and vote "my party right-or-wrong" and likely lose, again.
We will not redeem this country with more of the same as have put it where it is.
If you haven't seen that there are significant similarities between the two, with opportunity being the chief determinant of who has acted how, I can't help you. But there are those of us who tried doing that for months now, and the only time we are noticed is now, when we are reviled in your desperation to elect the very person we told you was unacceptable.
-
Again.... the issue is not whether they stopped everything. It's whether they stopped nothing. That's why I prefaced this entire conversation by first establishing where the goalposts actually are. And they nevertheless seem to be creeping....
The leftwing football was still advanced down the field and the opposition was weak and pathetic. I do not believe winning on a few lesser issues rationalizes their failures to put up opposition on more significant issues.
I am also cognizant of the fact that many in the party's leadership have declared deliberate war on the Tea Party, and feel emboldened to go further in this direction.
Both Republicans and Democrats appear to be working together to insure that the money fountain of Washington DC continues streaming out dollars to their respective crony groups.
We will not get the attention of our Party Heads so long as they think the status quo is a viable option.
The NRA has been highly successful in promoting it's single issue agenda. It has now trained the majority of the members of one party, and a sufficient plurality of the other party to either advance it's agenda, or leave it alone.
They are successful because they make it clear that there are penalties for betraying them. This is a proven successful tactic, and it is one we should have necessarily used on the Republican leadership when they launched (racist) attacks on the Tea Party.
In any case, I am not impressed by the "accomplishments" of our wussy leadership. They stalled the Democrat agenda a little, but they had within their power the ability to stall it a lot. They chose not to do so. They "Neville Chamberlained" it.
I am not the only one who feels that they are misleading us; That they are telling us what we want to hear until they get into the beltway, then they acquiesce and defer to policies which they should absolutely oppose.
-
There are reasons to oppose Trump but Hillary's superior grasp of our military capabilities is not one.
My point is that he is even more ignorant of those capabilities, not that I see ANY reason to vote for her, and that point was made in light of a comment about the Russians sending their children home (an act that is often an indicator of possible military conflict).
I definitely don't see any reason to vote for her, and no characteristics of him which are so redeeming as to overcome his deficits. In short, I wouldn't vote for either one of them at gunpoint.
-
This is not a courtroom trial. This is an election and opinions sway votes.
One would think that opinions should focus on serious issues more so than trivial issues. The media assured us in the 1990s that "sexual issues" were no impediment to Bill Clinton serving as President, and they have at long last convinced me that relatively, such concerns are trivial.
One would think the Nuclear Weapons being moved into the Baltic, or perhaps Iranian and North Korean Nuclear ICBM might be of some greater concern to us, but a people which focuses on nasty talk and alleged crotch grabbing probably ought to be led by a dictatorial idiot like Hillary.
-
That is not man talk. That is pervert talk. I've known a lot of good men in my life, including my husband, who would never ever say things like that. What's more, they would never listen to that kind of utter sleaze.
If you want to worship a man like that, I guess you can, but don't expect the rest of us to do it.
Thank God you put me on ignore. I consider this focus to be sheer foolishness, and I am glad I don't have to respond to your regarding it.
Nuclear Iran. Nuclear North Korea. Murdering Christians by the Thousands in the middle East. Democrat "voters" streaming across the borders. Economic system strained with Debt to the breaking point. Gestapo minded Witch about to declare us all "terrorists" and put the Federal bureaucracies in "attack mode" against us. Churches being assaulted by law and homosexual militants. Russia threatening Nuclear War...
And you want to talk about on crotch grabbing and dirty talk?
We have transformed into Idiocracy.
-
You brought up multiple strawmen arguments in one brief post. Kudos. That must have taken quite the effort.
But since it would be time consuming to try to deal with all of them, and since I know based on your very bad behavior yesterday (mods deleting your ugly posts on 2 different threads, and all that) that you won't deal well with the truth when it's given to you, nor to an opinion other than your warped view on humanity, so I won't waste the time.
Good bye.
Put him on "ignore"! He will thank you for it later. :)
-
But if someone does see a significant distinction, then Trump being a pig in a 2005 video will be a miniscule blip in terms of historical relevance when measured about against what happens in this country from 2017-2020.
Perspective and priorities are sorely lacking among some of our allies.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/1fc4c5c1908c9d7df9e45b544e534e1b/tumblr_mf5n2cX64n1rbrm08o1_500.gif)
-
Character matters. That character will be the basis of everything he does.
You forgot to add the "s". "She does."
We know what she does. She works around the law at every opportunity, lies constantly, sells influence, and tries to punish her enemies (you) with whatever power is at her disposal.
That is what "she" does.
-
In spite of all the ADULT men on this forum countering your claims that ALL men and women behave as pre-pubescent creeps, you keep insisting that your sordid little world is the way things actually work.
You're hurting Donnie's cause here. Stop flailing.
It would be nice if we had more adult women on this forum.
-
You forgot to add the "s". "She does."
We know what she does. She works around the law at every opportunity, lies constantly, sells influence, and tries to punish her enemies (you) with whatever power is at her disposal.
That is what "she" does.
We know what he does, (1) he works around the law at every opportunity, (2) lies constantly, (3) buys influence, and (4) tries to punish his enemies (me) with whatever power is at his disposal.
Damn! The only difference I see here is which side of the counter they are on in number 3.
-
All? Only 3 maybe 4 men posters don't agree with me. The others are keeping silent.
@musiclady
I think you are accurately describing a significant portion of the male behavior pattern in our society.
I've heard lots of this stuff and worse.
These wilting flowers should try listening to some Gangsta Rap. They would have apoplexy.
-
It would be nice if we had more adult women on this forum.
Yeah....we could always use more.
But, admittedly, I am happy with the ones we have.
-
Perspective and priorities are sorely lacking among some of our allies.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/1fc4c5c1908c9d7df9e45b544e534e1b/tumblr_mf5n2cX64n1rbrm08o1_500.gif)
I'm honestly in awe on this, and am actually coming around to thinking that those on the left may have been right about the lack of clear thinking on the right.
I disagree with you on NBC. I disagree with @LMAO on voting for Trump. There's some others I disagree with as well on various issues, but I can still tell that they are seeing things clearly, and using reason, even if they come to a different conclusion. But there seems to be this almost mob mentality among so many others. It's like a piece of chum floats in the water, and everyone just goes at it in a frenzy, ignoring the larger picture.
I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around that happening to this degree. I feel like I've stumbled onto the mirror image of TOS.
-
I think you are accurately describing a significant portion of the male behavior pattern in our society.
I've heard lots of this stuff and worse.
These wilting flowers should try listening to some Gangsta Rap. They would have apoplexy.
"Gangsta Rap"? Really? That bottom-feeding excuse for "music"?
Which part do you like? The gratuitous use of profanity? The misogyny? Does it make you swell with pride?
That rot is offensive, no matter who you are. Why recommend that? If you like that, I think I am beginning to see your problem.
-
I don't understand all this nit picking to attempt to excuse Trump's words and behavior.
He's not on trial in a court of law. He's on trial in the public perception of whether he's fit to be president.
Most women think he is not. Take that to your locker room and smoke it.
That's what's both hilarious and tragic...all the Trumpsters and water carriers are looking down dead ends and twisting themselves into knots trying to blame various "elite" Pubbie "traitors" for Trump going down.
The fact is the majority of the people in the squishy middle, as usual, are deciding this thing. They're looking at Trump with revulsion. They may not like Felonia McPantsuit much, but they detest sexual perverts. At least this sexual pervert.
-
We know what he does, (1) he works around the law at every opportunity, (2) lies constantly, (3) buys influence, and (4) tries to punish his enemies (me) with whatever power is at his disposal.
Damn! The only difference I see here is which side of the counter they are on in number 3.
Trump is an absolute novice when it comes to politics and government. Hillary is an expert, and has surrounded herself with a coterie of blood loyalists who have lived their lives in politics as well. Even if Trump wanted to be as corrupt and abusive in office as Hillary, I don't think he has anywhere near the capability to pull it off. She's a turnkey corruption/abuse of power machine, who will have absolutely no foreseeable checks on her abuses, as there is no possible way the Democrats would ever sanction the first woman President.
-
A little warning to the Trump die hard supporters...
There a lot of reluctant Trump voters (like me) who may change their mind at the last minute (like me), who will not vote for Trump cause of your attitude towards other people.
The sad fact is this: The fact that are you still trying to convince people to vote for Trump right now doesn't say much. Also if you want people for you candidate yelling and screaming at people is not helping. Also calling people names is not cool.
@kevindavis
I'm not sure they care that they are driving even the reluctant voters away.
They are not now, nor have they ever been using their brains. It's their emotions that have driven their Trump support, and emotions are not swayed by logic.
I'm glad you posted this because you are surely not alone. There are many who feel that they need to vote for Trump because of Hillary, but have been extremely reluctant because Trump is so very, very bad.
But the screeches of the Trump faithful are at risk of turning the reluctant away from voting for him.
And they just don't care.....
-
That's what's both hilarious and tragic...all the Trumpsters and water carriers are looking down dead ends and twisting themselves into knots trying to blame various "elite" Pubbie "traitors" for Trump going down.
The fact is the majority of the people in the squishy middle, as usual, are deciding this thing. They're looking at Trump with revulsion. They may not like Felonia McPantsuit much, but they detest sexual perverts. At least this sexual pervert.
I think the average schmuck is intimidated by sexual perverts who think they can 'get away with it' because of money, power, or position. This was what ticked them off about Clinton diddling interns, something which would get any corporate CEO fired, if it came out.
There is a deep distrust of the rich and powerful in the middle class, because people feel vulnerable to abuse by that same group. Enter Trump dong the same sort of stuff as the other guy, and they let him because he's rich...
That won't play well, at a visceral level.
Felonia was played as a "brave, victim, who stood by her man....(yaddayaddayadda)." Not the active participant.
-
We know what he does, (1) he works around the law at every opportunity, (2) lies constantly, (3) buys influence, and (4) tries to punish his enemies (me) with whatever power is at his disposal.
Except he has done these things as a Private businessman, which is very constrained in power. She has done it as a government official and using the powers of government to do it.
Trump has done only what a civilian is able to do, and indeed, what any civilian could do. Hillary has done what only a dictator can do, and with far worse consequences.
Did Trump get anyone arrested and thrown in prison on a false pretext? (Video maker which Hillary blamed for Benghazi.)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/nakoula660.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Did Trump harness the IRS to attack his political opponents? Did Trump "acquire" by illegal means, FBI files on his political opponents?
Did Trump provide access to government and changes in government policy through bribes paid to his "foundation"?
Trump operates in the Business environment of New York. I do not believe it is possible to do business there without being pretty rough. But Hillary abused power as a member of the Watergate Investigative Team, She abused power as the Governor's wife in Arkansas, She abused power as First Lady in the White House, She abused power as a Senator from New York, and she abused power as Secretary of State.
Not minor abuses of power either. Serious and significant abuses of power. "Brownshirt" level abuses of power. She also hates and despises us.
Even if Trump had reached the pinnacle of abuse of power and corruption that Hillary represents, he still does not possess a passionate hatred of us and everything for which we stand and believe.
You let that witch get her hands on power and we shall all suffer, especially those among us who are most worried about ethics and morality.
-
I'm honestly in awe on this, and am actually coming around to thinking that those on the left may have been right about the lack of clear thinking on the right.
I disagree with you on NBC. I disagree with @LMAO on voting for Trump. There's some others I disagree with as well on various issues, but I can still tell that they are seeing things clearly, and using reason, even if they come to a different conclusion. But there seems to be this almost mob mentality among so many others. It's like a piece of chum floats in the water, and everyone just goes at it in a frenzy, ignoring the larger picture.
I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around that happening to this degree. I feel like I've stumbled onto the mirror image of TOS.
I'm sorry, Bill. I don't think this about most of what you post, but this is ludicrous.
This place is nothing like TOS and none of the people here are either (other than the ones who want to ban people for not supporting Trump).
You may disagree with what so-called NeverTrumpers think, but the mess that has happened is directly the result of the mindless support of a liberal reprobate like Trump in the primary.
TRUMP is the source of the problem, and those who fell for his snake oil salesman lies.
Don't blame the people who are consistent in our opposition to liberalism and who have not been swayed to vote for something we feel is completely destructive and wrong.
Place the blame of what's happening where it belongs.
On liberal, lying Donald Trump.
-
@kevindavis
I'm not sure they care that they are driving even the reluctant voters away.
They are not now, nor have they ever been using their brains. It's their emotions that have driven their Trump support, and emotions are not swayed by logic.
I'm glad you posted this because you are surely not alone. There are many who feel that they need to vote for Trump because of Hillary, but have been extremely reluctant because Trump is so very, very bad.
But the screeches of the Trump faithful are at risk of turning the reluctant away from voting for him.
And they just don't care.....
@musiclady
Thank you, but I think you are right.
I'm just offering some friendly advise and a little warning. But I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears.
-
The rest of us ALL know what he said.
And that is very different from "supporting" Trump as you claimed.
Here is Ted Cruz himself
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
.
.
.
We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.
.
.
.
If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
.
.
.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him (Trump).
Cruz gets it exactly right. Unlike @musiclady and @txradioguy. That sure sounds like an endorsement to me.
-
Except he has done these things as a Private businessman, which is very constrained in power. She has done it as a government official and using the powers of government to do it.
Trump has done only what a civilian is able to do, and indeed, what any civilian could do. Hillary has done what only a dictator can do, and with far worse consequences.
Did Trump get anyone arrested and thrown in prison on a false pretext? (Video maker which Hillary blamed for Benghazi.)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/nakoula660.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Did Trump harness the IRS to attack his political opponents? Did Trump "acquire" by illegal means, FBI files on his political opponents?
Did Trump provide access to government and changes in government policy through bribes paid to his "foundation"?
Trump operates in the Business environment of New York. I do not believe it is possible to do business there without being pretty rough. But Hillary abused power as a member of the Watergate Investigative Team, She abused power as the Governor's wife in Arkansas, She abused power as First Lady in the White House, She abused power as a Senator from New York, and she abused power as Secretary of State.
Not minor abuses of power either. Serious and significant abuses of power. "Brownshirt" level abuses of power. She also hates and despises us.
Even if Trump had reached the pinnacle of abuse of power and corruption that Hillary represents, he still does not possess a passionate hatred of us and everything for which we stand and believe.
You let that witch get her hands on power and we shall all suffer, especially those among us who are most worried about ethics and morality.
My point is that he has done all these things without the might and resources of the United States Government at his behest.
The IRS was under Obama's direction. The arrest of the filmmaker, ditto.
He has abused every scrap of power he has had. Just imagine what he could accomplish with all THAT power she (and Obama) had.
Yet you want to give that to him?
-
Trump cannot be trusted. Hillary will advance every liberal issue that comes along. We know that. But Hillary is at least sane. Mean, but sane.
(http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hillary-eye.jpg)
Image NOT DOCTORED. REAL IMAGE. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/british-paper-hillarys-floating-eyeball-may-sign-serious-health-issues/)
(http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-eyes-575x490.jpg)
-
(http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/hillary-clinton-eyes-unfocused-drudge-600.jpg)
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/mystery-now-hillarys-eyes-go-crazy/
-
That's enough for me for now. There is only so much crazy I can take in any given period.
-
Put me on the disagree list.
He has done the best one legged duck imitation I have ever seen. I think If his read what he has posted she'd punch him right between the running lights.
We both know what this is.....the Trumpsters are looking with horror ( the ones that can bring themselves to look) at the garbage heap that is Trump's past. Naturally, like the people who excused Slick Willy's sexual escapades, they have to rationalize what the pig did. "Well, all men have done that" they're screeching. Except very few men have ever done what Trump has done. It doesn't make any difference that they weren't in the position (no pun intended) he was....they simply didn't do it.
Despite what MF says, most men have a little restraint. And I've been friends with some real wild guys who didn't hide their appreciation of the physical attributes of members of the opposite sex.
What's really revolting are all the females on places like TOS who try to justify the Orange Toad's behavior. They know if it were them or their daughters they'd be singing a different tune. Or maybe they wouldn't. :whistle:
-
You tell me which one has the better understanding of our military capabilities.
I gather you are a big fan of repealing don't ask don't tell, women in combat, drafting little Suzy and transgender sensitivity training. I say this as someone that enlisted (USMC) in time of war, I would not enlist in todays' military.
-
The most important election of my lifetime occurred in Cleveland three months ago. Conservatives lost. The election a month from now is merely window dressing. Afterwards, a NY Liberal will become our next President.
:amen:
-
My point is that he is even more ignorant of those capabilities
Donald Trump attended the New York Military Academy where he did quite well, do tell what Military Academy did Hillary attend?
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/01/09/National-Enterprise/Images/We-want-to-use-these-0031452363250.jpg)
-
And you want to talk about on crotch grabbing and dirty talk?
We have transformed into Idiocracy.
Yes we have and nicely put.
-
@musiclady
Thank you, but I think you are right.
I'm just offering some friendly advise and a little warning. But I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears.
It will. :shrug:
-
Donald Trump attended the New Military Academy where he did quite well, do tell what Military Academy did Hillary attend?
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/01/09/National-Enterprise/Images/We-want-to-use-these-0031452363250.jpg)
Donald Trump was sent to the New Military Academy by a father that could no longer control his assault behavior and related outbursts.
Fixed it for you.
See his music teacher for examples.
-
I gather you are a big fan of repealing don't ask don't tell, women in combat, drafting little Suzy and transgender sensitivity training. I say this as someone that enlisted (USMC) in time of war, I would not enlist in todays' military.
Just had a long talk a couple of weeks ago with my nephew, who is a corporal with 1/11 in Pendleton, regarding reenlistment. He wasn't happy with those same things -- says there is this sense that they're all now looking over their shoulders to make sure they're "with the program", etc.. He asked for my input, and I told him that as long as he thinks he's got solid options when he gets out, that's probably what he should do.
Generally, I have stopped encouraging people to enlist. I won't tell them not to, but I no longer encourage it.
-
I gather you are a big fan of repealing don't ask don't tell, women in combat, drafting little Suzy and transgender sensitivity training. I say this as someone that enlisted (USMC) in time of war, I would not enlist in todays' military.
How you put asking about who has a basic understanding of the order of battle, capability, and deployment of us forces, conventional and strategic, into somehow me supposedly approving of the social experimentation being conducted in today's military, I frankly don't know.
As far as Jumping to Conclusions, that broke an Olympic record.
My attitude toward homosexuality is simple. Put it back in the closet. Let Arlo Guthrie and his pal get out of the draft. (from Alice's Restaurant, in case you don't get the reference).
Nothing which adversely affects military unit cohesion and capability is okay with me. The purpose of our armed forces is to project policy as power, and that means either intimidating an enemy, or actually breaking things and killing people. That doesn't mean playing grabass, with either sex.
If someone is confused about which sex they are, I don't want them in control of a weapons system or involved with operational support for that on our behalf. If they can't keep something that fundamental straight, find other employment, maybe with the State Department. There is no room for confusion in the armed forces we depend on for our defense.
I am not in favor of women in combat, although any in 'support units' should know how to fight, just in case they have to. I am adamantly opposed to lowering qualifications standards to permit anyone to be in combat arms. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and interdependency for combat effectiveness is vital.
-
Donald Trump was sent to the New Military Academy by a father that could no longer control his assault behavior and related outbursts.
Fixed it for you.
See his music teacher for examples.
Did he attend and do well there? Back in the day sending a rebellious male teenager to a military academy was a common practice by the well to do. There were girls schools for the female version of a rebellious teenager. Most of the time the schools did a good job of "domesticating" the teenager. I think the NYMA did a good job at creating a successful and patriotic Donald Trump.
-
Donald Trump attended the New York Military Academy where he did quite well, do tell what Military Academy did Hillary attend?
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/01/09/National-Enterprise/Images/We-want-to-use-these-0031452363250.jpg)
In 1969? That will have him right up to date on missile defense systems. Not one front line aircraft except the BUFF and the C-130 is still in front line use. Even the vehicles have changed. Yep, he's right up to date.
-
The primary reason that I have not chimed in is because I am unable to focus on anything else besides the glaring stupidity of Donald Trump. There are only two explanations here. Either:
- Donald trump is the biggest fool of a candidate in US history
- Donald Trump is colluding with the Democrats to help them win the White House plus as many Congressional seats as possible this November.
I'm going with both with a stronger motive of the latter.
Trump is and has been Hillary's Trojan Stalking Horse.
He has been a nuke planted right in the middle of the GOP and Conservatism.
The damage is irreparable and the division, permanent.
-
How you put asking about who has a basic understanding of the order of battle, capability, and deployment of us forces, conventional and strategic, into somehow me supposedly approving of the social experimentation being conducted in today's military, I frankly don't know.
As far as Jumping to Conclusions, that broke an Olympic record.
My attitude toward homosexuality is simple. Put it back in the closet. Let Arlo Guthrie and his pal get out of the draft. (from Alice's Restaurant, in case you don't get the reference).
Nothing which adversely affects military unit cohesion and capability is okay with me. The purpose of our armed forces is to project policy as power, and that means either intimidating an enemy, or actually breaking things and killing people. That doesn't mean playing grabass, with either sex.
If someone is confused about which sex they are, I don't want them in control of a weapons system or involved with operational support for that on our behalf. If they can't keep something that fundamental straight, find other employment, maybe with the State Department. There is no room for confusion in the armed forces we depend on for our defense.
I am not in favor of women in combat, although any in 'support units' should know how to fight, just in case they have to. I am adamantly opposed to lowering qualifications standards to permit anyone to be in combat arms. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and interdependency for combat effectiveness is vital.
It is pretty obvious to me you never served. Morale is probably the most important factor in any military. Leadership a close second, both are in the toilet today because of policies Hillary will continue. Since I only did one enlistment I'll ask @Maj. Bill Martin if he agrees. One does not get to be a Major without spending many years in service.
-
Did he attend and do well there? Back in the day sending a rebellious male teenager to a military academy was a common practice by the well to do. There were girls schools for the female version of a rebellious teenager. Most of the time the schools did a good job of "domesticating" the teenager. I think the NYMA did a good job at creating a successful and patriotic Donald Trump.
Again, "Donald Trump was sent to the New Military Academy by a father that could no longer control his assault behavior and related outbursts."
What you 'think' doesn't mean much since you have repeatedly showed flawed thinking in supporting a liberal.
-
Alice's Restaurant[/i], in case you don't get the reference).
375942]
As far as Jumping to Conclusions, that broke an Olympic record.
I say touting the military abilities of the person that left everyone in Bengazi to die has me beat.
-
Again, "Donald Trump was sent to the New Military Academy by a father that could no longer control his assault behavior and related outbursts."
What you 'think' doesn't mean much since you have repeatedly showed flawed thinking in supporting a liberal.
And your point is?
-
You tell me which one has the better understanding of our military capabilities.
In a 2015 memo by the Secretary of the Army to worldwide Army Commands, the Secretary dictated that ‘Commanders and soldiers will balance lactation support and readiness.’
In response, Colonel (Ret.) Fred Dibella, USMA Class of ’69 and former TAC of Company F2 at West Point wrote:
“Ok, I’ve had all I can stomach. I’m done.
Scroll down and read this crap right now, if you think I’m kidding, then come back to my remarks, if you haven’t puked your guts out. (USMA ‘69 forum, feel free to permanently ban me from your rolls, but I’ve had enough.)
Obama and his lackeys have now systematically laid the groundwork to accomplish what no battlefield enemy has ever done; that is, to emasculate the United States Military. I honestly don’t know how he could have done it more effectively. He’s dangerously downsized the force; he’s rooted out warriors like Stan McChrystal and Carter Ham from the General and Flag Officer ranks and installed puppets like George Casey and Martin Dempsey; he not only obliterated ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’; he searched long and hard to find an openly gay (and utterly unqualified) man to be Secretary of the Army; he opened not just combat arms to women, but the absolute tips of the spear in Infantry, Armor and Artillery, and the predictable result is directives like “balance lactation support and readiness”?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? Balance lactation support and readiness!?
Sorry, I’m old school, but I THOUGHT READINESS WAS NEVER, EVER COMPROMISED… let alone for “lactation support”.
Have we gone completely mad?!? Do you think for a moment that the greatest fighting force the planet has ever known is immune to emasculation? That there’s nothing that Obama can do to significantly degrade its lethality? That somehow we will magically prevail, despite all this crap?
Here’s the blunt truth, and if you think this flies in the face of political correctness and/or liberal theology… congratulations.
The most important reason the U.S. Military has been so dominant, so lethal, and so unbeatable over that last 200 years is that we subscribe to a Warrior Ethos. We’re not quite Sparta, but we ain’t been far behind. That is, until now. Up to now, we have recognized the blatantly obvious: That battles and wars are won by Alpha Males. And why is that? Uh… because men and women may well be equal in the eyes of God, but they damned sure ain’t identical in the laws of physics and psychology. Men are, by and large, bigger, stronger, faster, more aggressive, more violent, more ferocious, more intense, more powerful, more brutal, more belligerent, more destructive, AND THEREFORE MORE LETHAL than women.
You don’t buy that? Tell you what – pick 50 men at random from anywhere and 50 women. Put ‘em in a big ring and tell ‘em to fight to the death. Have a problem immediately predicting the outcome? If you do, I can’t help you. You’re an idiot or a flaming liberal who believes that “Laura Croft, Tomb Raider” is real.
Why do you think Martin Dempsey, Obama’s personal lackey in uniform, issued his famous proclamation? You know the one: “If women can’t pass the standards at Ranger school, SEAL school, and other similar training programs, then the standards will have to be justified to me”.
God help me, but am I the only one who sees through that bull? I guess the Rangers at Point du Hoc weren’t good enough, huh Martin? Neither were the SEALS at Benghazi? I guess Delta’s incredible successes are not sufficient. ‘We must reassess the standards’. Total crock of ----. Scrape away the BS, and here’s the residue: We’re gonna lower the bar ‘till the women can get over it, period. Think that’ll have any effect on lethality? BTW, how’d you like to be the Ranger School Commandant who goes to Massa Dempsey’s office to ‘splain why women aint’ makin’ it? Think he might avoid that by “adjusting” things a bit?
But it’s more than physicality. It’s about the laws of nature. That is, when young men and women are put together they respond to hormones rather than ‘good order and discipline’. 1976: Women are introduced to West Point. Regulations strictly prohibited fraternization among cadets. Hahahahahahaha. Written by some idiot, no doubt. They were bangin’ each other like rabbits. Trust me, I had a ringside seat. But that wouldn’t happen in a Ranger squad, or a SEAL team, right? If you said, “Right”, then you’re an idiot. The squad/team leader is messin’ around with a female and there’s no degradation to good order and discipline, right? The previous “Brotherhood” that formerly bonded warriors together won’t be affected, right?
So we now have a female Commandant of Cadets at West Point. See how freaking enlightened we are? We can appoint females to the leadership roles at the nations’ premier School for Warriors. That is, the nations’ FORMER premier School for Warriors. West Point is now the tip of the Political Correctness spear. We have gay marriages at the cadet chapel, we have kindness and compassion seminars, we even have Sensitivity Officers on cadet staffs - right next to the Operations and Logistics Officers - to ensure that Alpha Males do not behave like Alpha Males. We dumb ‘em down now. We used to understand that good warriors were a little rough around the edges. We tolerated that, because we knew ‘em for what they were… Patton comes immediately to mind. Instead, now we intentionally extract the fangs from the sheepdogs, just about the time when the wolves from Islam are stalking the flock…
Obama gave us Obamacare, which is now sinking under its own sick formula. Good thing, because the gutless Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to defund it. Obama has given us Sotomayor and Kagan, two flaming Liberals who will sit on that bench for a generation of Looney Tunes. Obama has demonstrated his racism, his socialism, his disdain for law enforcement and even his proclivity for Islam (the “peaceful” religion… what a laugh). He’s been the single most divisive and destructive POTUS in my lifetime. America, thanks to him, is at war with itself. GOP vs ‘Crats, Blacks vs Whites, Haves vs Have-nots, Women vs Men, Armed vs Unarmed, you name the category… we have two sides at war with each other.
The debt is approaching $20 Trillion. That’s such a ridiculous number that even economists can’t fathom it. More than half of it generated on Obama’s personal watch. We have no national border. None. Agents have been defanged, and the illegal aliens come across at will. The problems in Arizona and Texas are ignored by Obama. Israel has gone from being our most trusted and respected ally in the Mideast to being openly discredited, condemned and insulted by him. The nuclear deal with Iran was and is a joke. Un-vetted Syrian male “refugees”… well hell, come to America! It’s all so transparent. You elect an utterly totally unqualified candidate with dangerous background affiliations in his past, and this is what you get: a self-inflicted wound.
But it all pales, in my humble world, to his destruction of the American Military. These are the guardians of our way of life. These are the warriors. These are the “rough MEN who allow us to sleep soundly, because they stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm”. But go ahead, America: let this ideologue continue the systematic defanging of our fighting force. Let him feminize it. Let him drag it into the political correctness cesspool. Let him continue the social engineering and tinkering. Keep putting high heel shoes on male cadets, so they can “empathize”. Forget all our hard-fought lessons at Khe Sanh, the Chosin Reservoir, Bastogne, Belleau Wood, Gettysburg, and Bunker Hill. Let the idiots tell you that war is “push button” now, so anyone can be a warrior.
Go ahead…
Historians won’t have a difficult time analyzing this disintegration. We were just too timid to put a stop to the madness… ”
Col. Fred Dibella, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Elect Hillary and get more of the same.
-
Cruz gets it exactly right. Unlike @musiclady and @txradioguy. That sure sounds like an endorsement to me.
Sounds to me like you need to consult Webster's and refresh yourself on what the definition of "endorsement" is.
Cause you ain't even in the ballpark n00b.
-
It is pretty obvious to me you never served. Morale is probably the most important factor in any military. Leadership a close second, both are in the toilet today because of policies Hillary will continue. Since I only did one enlistment I'll ask @Maj. Bill Martin if he agrees. One does not get to be a Major without spending many years in service.
Ha ha. Find out who Maj. Bill Martin really was. No, I never served and make no bones about it. Pity you didn't read what I posted, though, because I clearly stated where I am on the policies you mentioned. Just in case you don't have a cognitive defect, please go back and read what I said.
I'm not voting for either Trump or Hillary. The guy I am voting for is a Vietnam Veteran, USMC.
-
Again, "Donald Trump was sent to the New Military Academy by a father that could no longer control his assault behavior and related outbursts."
What you 'think' doesn't mean much since you have repeatedly showed flawed thinking in supporting a liberal.
The fact that he got sent to military school for assaulting a music teacher isn't particularly reassuring either.....
(Especially for music teachers!)
-
Voting 3rd party is sitting out the most important election of your life time.
Sez who? YOU??
Your opinion has absolutely NO VALUE WHATSOEVER since you are voting for a lifelong NY liberal Democrat who only attacks Republicans and Conservatives while leaving Hildabeast virtually untouched.
SO POUND SAND PAL.
We're voting third party.
Not a damn thing you can do about it. Not a damn thing you can say about it that is going to change our mind.
It is you NeverTrumper that are throwing the election to Hillary. Go visit Paul Ryan's facebook page to see what everyone not for Hillary thinks of you NeverTrumpers.
We don't give a rat's ass what you thugs for Trump have to say about us.
You people made it clear from the beginning we were the enemy if we did not vote for Trump in the Primaries. You people said we would be hunted down with dogs for refusing to support your prince. Your compatriots are threatening to kill us for treason.
We do not care that your fellow mob of Fascists opine on Ryan's page what their thoughts are about us. We know what they are. You people have made them clear from the beginning.
We don't care what you think.
We're enemies remember?
If you forgot - WE remember.
So your opinion of us has as about as much weight as what someone from BLM has to say about us.
We don't care.
You guys handed Hillary the White House the moment you made her Trojan Stalking Horse your prince.
-
Sounds to me like you need to consult Webster's and refresh yourself on what the definition of "endorsement" is.
Cause you ain't even in the ballpark n00b.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment.
That @txradioguy is an endorsement whether you like it or not.
-
It is pretty obvious to me you never served. Morale is probably the most important factor in any military. Leadership a close second, both are in the toilet today because of policies Hillary will continue. Since I only did one enlistment I'll ask @Maj. Bill Martin if he agrees. One does not get to be a Major without spending many years in service.
@jpsb
Check my sigline....cool, somewhat unknown story about WWII.
But on a personal note, I was a captain in the Marines, combat vet. I'm dropping from these threads, but may still post in the military forum. Actually did that already today.
-
It is pretty obvious to me you never served. Morale is probably the most important factor in any military. Leadership a close second, both are in the toilet today because of policies Hillary will continue. Since I only did one enlistment I'll ask @Maj. Bill Martin if he agrees. One does not get to be a Major without spending many years in service.
Trump isn't going to do anything to improve morale or leadership conditions. The only place where leadership is a problem at this point is honestly inside the 5 sided palace. Too many political yes men not enough real leadership…though I think GEN Milley is trying to change that.
Trump wants to turn us into a merc group who will fight only for the highest bidder. Putin is threatening Eastern Europe and Orange Wonderful wants to withdraw from NATO.
He's proven already he doesn't have the level headed temperament to be the CINC anymore than Hillary does. I wouldn't want to depend on either one of them to make the right call when the phone rings at 0300.
-
I say touting the military abilities of the person that left everyone in Bengazi to die has me beat.
Try beginning with an understanding of the Chain of Command. Secretary of State isn't on it.
Any orders to either launch a rescue or support mission had to come from Obama.
As did any orders to stand down.
Nowhere did I tout Hillary Clinton's military abilities. If you can find that, quote it.
I asked a question. Interesting you attack me as a Hillary supporter over that.
Keep your combover, pal, the POTUS candidate I'm voting for is a USMC veteran.
-
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment.
That @txradioguy is an endorsement whether you like it or not.
That's not an endorsement you obtuse dolt. Seriously. Do I need to cut and paste the definition for you?
Funny how you point that pledge out while Trump has said he doesn't want Cruz to honor the pledge and he wasn't going to honor it if he lost the nomination.
So continuing to point that out means jack squat in the real world outside of your Orange Trump Bubble World.
-
Oh poor baby, everything is going to be OK @Emjay
(http://kingofwallpapers.com/crying-girl-images/crying-girl-images-011.jpg)
I guess you are one of the creeps. Why don't you head on back to the locker room and have some vicarious sex.
-
It is pretty obvious to me you never served. Morale is probably the most important factor in any military. Leadership a close second, both are in the toilet today because of policies Hillary will continue. Since I only did one enlistment I'll ask @Maj. Bill Martin if he agrees. One does not get to be a Major without spending many years in service.
If you had read my post you would have seen this among other things.
"Nothing which adversely affects military unit cohesion and capability is okay with me. "
You didn't read, or if you did, you don't understand English.
As for never having served, I have made no bones about that fact. For several reasons, I did not enter the military, and instead took advantage of another opportunity.
After earning my Geology degree and a year of work on a Masters' degree in Uranium Geochemistry, since 1979, I have worked on oil rigs and drilling locations in seven US states.
Someone has to fuel it all, and throughout all that we have fought our own battles to do so. Our industry has been besieged and still is by liberals, ecowhackos, and even terrorists, oh, and Democrats, too. So far we haven't been shot at, thankfully.
I am well on record as being opposed to Hillary for a host of reasons. No, I don't think she would be a good CinC either.
I'm voting for the USMC vet.
-
Donald Trump has lived in a fish bowl almost his entire adult life, until he took on the Clinton's there has never been even a hint of sexual harassment or any kind of assault.
Not true at all. He was well known for his lewd, crude behavior. He always says things like "Women, you have to treat them like sh^&!"
He is well known for having many, many mistresses while married.
-
Trump isn't going to do anything to improve morale or leadership conditions. The only place where leadership is a problem at this point is honestly inside the 5 sided palace. Too many political yes men not enough real leadership…though I think GEN Milley is trying to change that.
Trump wants to turn us into a merc group who will fight only for the highest bidder. Putin is threatening Eastern Europe and Orange Wonderful wants to withdraw from NATO.
He's proven already he doesn't have the level headed temperament to be the CINC anymore than Hillary does. I wouldn't want to depend on either one of them to make the right call when the phone rings at 0300.
NATO was formed to protect Western Europe from an aggressive Soviet Union. There no longer is a Soviet Union and NATO has been (mis)used on a number missions it had no business getting into. So I agree with Trump that NATO mission needs to be redefined. The neocons (spit) missed an historic opportunity to bring Russia into the western world after the collapse of the USSR. But instead of offering a helping hand to Russia they gave Russia the back of their hand and now we will paid the price for their stupidity.
-
@jpsb still here? Why aren't you in your natural habitat ... the locker room?
-
Not true at all. He was well known for his lewd, crude behavior. He always says things like "Women, you have to treat them like sh^&!"
He is well known for having many, many mistresses while married.
My question is, why in heck didn't they know this about Trump?? It's not like he's hidden his lecherousness in the closet. He's PROUD of how much of a reprobate and seedy guy he is.
How can anyone with a straight face say that none of his garbage life came out until he challenged Hillary?
What kind of lala land do these people live in that they refuse to acknowledge who Trump is now, and always has been?
-
NATO was formed to protect Western Europe from an aggressive Soviet Union. There no longer is a Soviet Union and NATO has been (mis)used on a number missions it had no business getting into. So I agree with Trump that NATO mission needs to be redefined. The neocons (spit) missed an historic opportunity to bring Russia into the western world after the collapse of the USSR. But instead of offering a helping hand to Russia they gave Russia the back of their hand and now we will paid the price for their stupidity.
You gleaned all of that from your one brief hitch in the military?
Hell we should make you CJCS you've got it all figured out.
What the hell exactly do you think Putin is doing in the Ukraine and the Crimea if not projecting Russian (nee Soviet) aggression upon it's neighbors. Guess you've not been paying attention to his military aggression against Western Europe with the numerous interceptions of his bombers and subs entering territorial waters...or even his aggressiveness against our own warships in the Black Sea.
I can tell you that the Balkans and the other former WARSAW Pact countries that have become NATO allied and partner states are scared shitless that Vlad is trying to reunite the former Soviet Union.
Trump doesn't intend to redefine our mission in NATO...he's said plainly he wants us out. He want's to base whether we help a country on how much they are willing to pay us. He's completely clueless about exactly how much the countries where we have bases pay already.
We helped Russia we did everything we could to stabilize them after the wall came down and the USSR dissolved. Same as we've done for the other former SSR's.
You obviously weren't paying attention.
-
You gleaned all of that from your one brief hitch in the military?
Hell we should make you CJCS you've got it all figured out.
What the hell exactly do you think Putin is doing in the Ukraine and the Crimea if not projecting Russian (nee Soviet) aggression upon it's neighbors. Guess you've not been paying attention to his military aggression against Western Europe with the numerous interceptions of his bombers and subs entering territorial waters...or even his aggressiveness against our own warships in the Black Sea.
I can tell you that the Balkans and the other former WARSAW Pact countries that have become NATO allied and partner states are scared shitless that Vlad is trying to reunite the former Soviet Union.
Trump doesn't intend to redefine our mission in NATO...he's said plainly he wants us out. He want's to base whether we help a country on how much they are willing to pay us. He's completely clueless about exactly how much the countries where we have bases pay already.
We helped Russia we did everything we could to stabilize them after the wall came down and the USSR dissolved. Same as we've done for the other former SSR's.
You obviously weren't paying attention.
You really need to educate yourself a tad more before trying to engage me in conservation. You can start by reading the history of the Crimea and then tell me which nation has the best claim to it. HINT it is not the Ukraine.
-
My question is, why in heck didn't they know this about Trump?? It's not like he's hidden his lecherousness in the closet. He's PROUD of how much of a reprobate and seedy guy he is.
How can anyone with a straight face say that none of his garbage life came out until he challenged Hillary?
What kind of lala land do these people live in that they refuse to acknowledge who Trump is now, and always has been?
In a nutshell, anyone who tried to point this out was immediately shouted down as anything from a Hillary supporter to a _______ (fill in a name, any name)-bot and banned, depending on the website. Trump supporters went to deep emotional involvement with their candidate very early on (late Jan., early Feb, about the time most of the politically inclined are beginning to take a good, hard, look at the field), and just would not listen to anything bad about 'The Donald'.
Now that that is coming to the surface again, the same people who insisted on not hearing it are blaming the people who tried to warn them.
No good deed goes unpunished.
-
You really need to educate yourself a tad more before trying to engage me in conservation. You can start by reading the history of the Crimea and then tell me which nation has the best claim to it. HINT it is not the Ukraine.
You mean the history where Stalin falsely accused the native people of the Crimea...ethnic Tartars...of being NAZI's and then ran them into IIRC...into Mongolia and then flooded the country with native Russians?
The same bit of propaganda I might add...that Putin used and is using?
Is THAT the history you're talking about?
What about his unwarranted attacks on Georgia and Southern Osstentia?(sp?)
Russia has no business moving on any of those places.
But for some strange reason you don't seem to have a problem with it.
-
Barring some horrific unforeseen event either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be elected President of the USA. Voting 3rd party is sitting out the most important election of your life time. Elect Hillary and you give the country over to corrupt fascist globalists and you will never get it back. Plus she will most likely get us into a hot war with Russia over Syria. Hot as in 10 million degrees Kelvin.
@musiclady
Why don't you stick to that as your argument? It actually has some merit. Trying to defending the Pig on his gross sexual behavior has no merit.
-
Again, "Donald Trump was sent to the New Military Academy by a father that could no longer control his assault behavior and related outbursts."
What you 'think' doesn't mean much since you have repeatedly showed flawed thinking in supporting a liberal.
Trump was a bully and an obnoxious azz even as a teenager. He has only gotten 'worse' (hard to imagine, I know) over the decades.
-
What the hell exactly do you think Putin is doing in the Ukraine and the Crimea if not projecting Russian (nee Soviet) aggression upon it's neighbors. Guess you've not been paying attention to his military aggression against Western Europe with the numerous interceptions of his bombers and subs entering territorial waters...or even his aggressiveness against our own warships in the Black Sea.
Yep, it has become common
-
You mean the history where Stalin falsely accused the native people of the Crimea...ethnic Tartars...of being NAZI's and then ran them into IIRC...into Mongolia and then flooded the country with native Russians?
Russianisation of the occupied countries was an important thing to the commies
-
Russianisation of the occupied countries was an important thing to the commies
And thanks to Russianisation...Putin can use that excuse to roll his revamped and upgraded military into any of the former SSR's he chooses to.
-
This is sadly, evidence of how childish America has become. We have a woman who has a history of circumnavigating the law for corrupt purposes, who deliberately set up a email system so that it would be under her control and not answerable to the Freedom of Information act, and who used that system to enrich herself by selling influence as the top State Department officials, and people want to talk about profanity and groping?
Bill Clinton got a total pass on multiple rapes, adulteries, and various examples of far worse behavior than speaking profanity and unwanted touching, and we are to believe that the media is upset that Trump talked nasty?
The Russians are calling their children home. They have moved ballistic missiles into the Baltic region, they have informed us they will shoot down any American aircraft in Syria (why are we meddling with Syria?) and Russians have said we will likely be at war if Hillary gets elected, yet we want to talk about this stupid recording of Trump and what it implies?
God! What kind of stupid people are we?
Do you really trust a man as obviously unstable and self-centered as Donald Trump is to lead us in that kind of a situation? The man cannot even rein in his own sexual impulses. Every waking thought centers around himself. Do you know what those kind of "leaders" do in situations like that? Hole up in a bunker somewhere and let everyone else die before them. As long as he survives, and a few hot babes to boot, everything is awesome—for him.
It's not enough to say Hillary Clinton is bad. You have to have someone better to vote for, otherwise you gain nothing. And newsflash, DL: that better person may not be on the Republican line.
-
I can't help wondering if this poster has a Russian IP address. It would explain a lot.
-
And as usual, Ann Coulter brings it:
Donald Trump is the only hope to save America, so the media have gone to war to stop him.
They don't care about being exposed as lying, hypocritical swine -- I'd describe them more fully, but it would require locker room talk. They'll win the public back later. Right now, all that matters is stopping Trump.
The same media that are pretending to consider the use of a bad word equivalent to rape don't give a fig about real rape, real sexual assault, real whoring, even real homicide, depending on who did it.
JFK was an STD-infected drug addict who cavorted with whores at the White House, but the media ferociously hid all this from the public, publishing fairy-tale versions of his presidency as "Camelot.”
And what happened to the 11-year rule? Trump said the word "p*ssy" 11 years ago, in a secretly recorded conversation. Eleven years before Sen. Teddy Kennedy ran for president, he killed a girl -- but he ran, not only without apology, but, indeed, as the Conscience of the Democratic Party.
Throughout 2009, good, decent Americans who happened to oppose Obamacare were called the name of a gay sex act hundreds of times on TV -- and that was just on MSNBC. CNN's Anderson Cooper made the reference explicit when he giggled, "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging.”
Among the people using this sexual slur were distinguished members of Congress such as U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez and Rep. Barney Frank. Were they fit to hold office?
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-10-12.html#read_more
-
Donald Trump is the only hope to save America
That is just plain blasphemy and an affront to the entirety of our Republic and Liberty.
If Trump is indeed the 'only hope' to save the nation, then stick a fork in us, we are DONE - time to get right with God or find another place to call home.
-
I'm honestly in awe on this, and am actually coming around to thinking that those on the left may have been right about the lack of clear thinking on the right.
I disagree with you on NBC.
I have what I regard as a compelling piece of proof that I am correct, but which I have yet to put forth. I certainly have no objections to presenting it to you, though there are some others for whom I feel it would be a waste of time.
I disagree with @LMAO on voting for Trump. There's some others I disagree with as well on various issues, but I can still tell that they are seeing things clearly, and using reason, even if they come to a different conclusion. But there seems to be this almost mob mentality among so many others. It's like a piece of chum floats in the water, and everyone just goes at it in a frenzy, ignoring the larger picture.
I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around that happening to this degree. I feel like I've stumbled onto the mirror image of TOS.
That is exactly the feel I have. Back on TOS I was getting harangued and harassed for defending Ted Cruz, and people were coming at me with all sorts of irrational screeching and nonsense, and now I am pointing out the Insanity of jumping from the Donald Trump frying pan into the Hillary fire, and I get the same sort of mindless histrionics.
Everything is emotional. Little appears to be the consequence of well thought out consideration of the available facts.
I used to believe that Liberals were the emotional ones and we were the rational ones. I now believe that conservatives are just a cross section of the nation in terms of reason versus emotion. Our side does not appear to be more reasonable (motivated by reason) than their side.
We just have conflicting agendas.
-
"Gangsta Rap"? Really? That bottom-feeding excuse for "music"?
Which part do you like? The gratuitous use of profanity? The misogyny? Does it make you swell with pride?
That rot is offensive, no matter who you are. Why recommend that? If you like that, I think I am beginning to see your problem.
Why are you asserting that I like it? What did I say that gave you that impression, or are you projecting on me what you wish to believe?
I hate that stuff. The point is, a lot of people not only love it, but they act like that.
The point I am making is that we should all grow up and put our big boy pants on and keep things in perspective.
-
Trump is an absolute novice when it comes to politics and government. Hillary is an expert, and has surrounded herself with a coterie of blood loyalists who have lived their lives in politics as well. Even if Trump wanted to be as corrupt and abusive in office as Hillary, I don't think he has anywhere near the capability to pull it off. She's a turnkey corruption/abuse of power machine, who will have absolutely no foreseeable checks on her abuses, as there is no possible way the Democrats would ever sanction the first woman President.
(https://daithilife.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-was-fired-from-the-house-judiciary-committee1.jpg)
This was in 1974 folks. She's been a lying corrupt bag for a long time.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/60962/
-
My point is that he has done all these things without the might and resources of the United States Government at his behest.
The IRS was under Obama's direction. The arrest of the filmmaker, ditto.
He has abused every scrap of power he has had. Just imagine what he could accomplish with all THAT power she (and Obama) had.
Yet you want to give that to him?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Donald Trump is as dictatorial and corrupt as is Hillary.
Which one do you think the media will watch?
Which one do you think they will ignore?
How about an Honest answer?
-
@jpsb
I'm dropping from these threads, but may still post in the military forum. Actually did that already today.
"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time."
I am sorry to see you go.
-
I guess you are one of the creeps. Why don't you head on back to the locker room and have some vicarious sex.
Now that's creepy.
-
@jpsb still here? Why aren't you in your natural habitat ... the locker room?
Still creepy. Boy am I glad you put me on ignore!
-
Why don't you stick to that as your argument? It actually has some merit. Trying to defending the Pig on his gross sexual behavior has no merit.
Trying to keep it going as an important issue has no merit. Now that 10 million degree thing on the other hand...
-
Do you really trust a man as obviously unstable and self-centered as Donald Trump is to lead us in that kind of a situation?
His history of pronouncements on the Middle East and Russia leave me feeling a lot more reassured than Hillary's History, such as the arming of the Islamic Rebels (which became ISIS) and her acquiescence to the abandonment of Iraq by her Boss.
Hillary has a track record of disaster in both the Middle East *AND* her dealings with Russia.
Trump, from what I've heard, is making all of what I consider to be the right moves. He has signaled that we will leave the Russians alone regarding Syria, he has conveyed that he is respectful of the Russian Leader, and he has pointed out that he was against US involvement in Iraq in the first place.
He has said that NATO needs to have it's mission clarified, and most important of all, he's not a corrupt and psychotic evil old hag with a twitchy eye.
The man cannot even rein in his own sexual impulses.
Yes, I see him up on the stage all the time, grabbing women's crotches and such. You got to watch them 70 year olds. They are some horny bastards.
Every waking thought centers around himself.
Now this part I sorta agree with. I've been saying for a year or so that Trump's number one motivation is ego. He wants to be President because for him it represents the most significant manner in which his ego may yet be stroked. Yes, he is very much into himself.
But here's a thought. Perhaps his need for self affirmation will make him try to be the best President he can possibly be? He's got money. He's had plenty of women and has a d@mn fine one now. About the only way he can get further adulation is to gain people's respect by being what he believes is the best sort of President possible.
That is my theory of what is likely to happen, because I don't see him having any other motivation. In this case, there is a very good chance that his excessive narcissism will work in our favor.
It's not enough to say Hillary Clinton is bad. You have to have someone better to vote for, otherwise you gain nothing. And newsflash, DL: that better person may not be on the Republican line.
No, that's quite enough. Hillary is bad on a level of which most people cannot conceive. She is Cotton Mather bad. She is Vlad the Impaler bad. She is "Woman who bathes in virgin blood" level of bad. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory)
She is a Lucretia Borgia level of bad. She's a psychotic left wing "Prairie Fire" acolyte Hanoi Jane communist witch type of bad.
She is "anybody but Hillary" bad.
-
I can't help wondering if this poster has a Russian IP address. It would explain a lot.
At this point I am thinking the Russians are climbing out of the darkness while we are still going down the slope into the valley. (of Darkness)
What are they doing? They are stopping abortion, criminalizing the promotion of Homosexuality, Killing Muslims, defending Christians, and doing what is in the best interests of their country.
We are going in the other direction, and will continue to do so if Hillary has any say about it.
-
Ann Coulter has ZERO credibility with me. She is disgusting -- she is the problem, not the solution.
If you are making it personal about her, then you aren't going to accurately recognize the wisdom inherent in her words.
She is absolutely right. The media does not really care about vulgar talk. They simply don't.
This is bait for the Christian right. This is a con job.
-
That is just plain blasphemy and an affront to the entirety of our Republic and Liberty.
If Trump is indeed the 'only hope' to save the nation, then stick a fork in us, we are DONE - time to get right with God or find another place to call home.
I wish you would spend more time talking to God, and less time denigrating what looks like to me our only hope to avoid American Gestapo.
-
Why are you asserting that I like it? What did I say that gave you that impression, or are you projecting on me what you wish to believe?
I hate that stuff. The point is, a lot of people not only love it, but they act like that.
The point I am making is that we should all grow up and put our big boy pants on and keep things in perspective.
You recommended it.
My big boy pants are on. Right is right and wrong is wrong. You can split hairs saying some wrong is more wrong than other wrong, but no matter how finely you grade that, it is still wrong: i.e. Not right.
I'm not looking for perfect. But I am looking for the best representative of America in the world, someone who will champion the values I hold, and stand up for the Constitution of the United States of America.
Neither Hillary nor Trump is that person. Their split hair gradations of who is the more evil don't even matter from my perspective, they are that far off the beam.
The problem with things like Gangsta Rap and our current candidates is that when that is all the electorate is exposed to, they don't have enough contrast to make a choice. They listen to what is available, just as they vote for what is available--as far as they know. They base their likes and dislikes on what they are familiar with, not on what is.
You'd be amazed at the number of kids I know who absolutely love 70s rock and roll. Who, once exposed to a half dozen bands go scrounging YouTube for more, and they love that each band has its own signature sound, as different as a seashore from a city from a mountain--not the split hairs of different gangsta rap.
It's high time we got back to some significant differences, some contrast in politics and away from the 'my guy is better than the other candidates' guy because he only talked about grabbing pu**y and wasn't caught with ejaculate on the intern's dress.'
That sort of "improvement" is like saying there are drastic cuts in Welfare funding because it is only being increased by 10% instead of 35%.
DL, I know you are a smart person. Don't fall into that trap out of desperation to defeat Clinton.
If Trump gets elected and is the disaster most of us expect, provided there are elections in 2020, how do you propose to defeat the now-entrenched low expectations of a POTUS in an election? After four more years of Gangsta Rap, how are you going to get people to listen to a symphony?
At least if it is their (the Democrats') mess, the Republican Party will have the option of stepping in with a more conservative option to run with in 2020. If it is a GOP mess, the Democrats will take the ball clear to the other side of the field and run for the goalposts. Bernie the Socialist dangnear got the nomination this time, someone of his ilk will still have appeal next time--even more with disillusioned millennials, and the GOP will be in no position to counter with Trump.
Think about it. Think ahead. This election is a bust. Once again, the Republican Party has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Vote down ticket to put the brakes on, as best we can, and vote your conscience at the top. I know I will.
-
Let's say for the sake of argument that Donald Trump is as dictatorial and corrupt as is Hillary.
Which one do you think the media will watch?
Which one do you think they will ignore?
How about an Honest answer?
Which media?
The MSM will gloss over Hillary and revile Trump, at least until they lose access. Then they'll be more careful what they say. Access to the halls of power is more important to the harlots of the media.
The internet will be a different place. Those who haven't been kicked off of websites would scrutinize Hillary if they are Conservative, but if they are truly Conservative, they will scrutinize Trump, too.
The Democrats and Liberals and Communists will praise Hillary and damn Trump on the internet. So predictable, I bet you didn't need my answer to your rhetorical question.
That's an honest answer.
Your turn. Considering the media (MSM, especially) have helped create this mess, (why, they wouldn't promote the worst possible GOP Primary candidate so the Democrat would win the General, would they?), do you think what they say in the long run will make much difference?
Will it get us one micron closer to restoring the Republic? Not with these tools and materials.
I was gobsmacked at the CNN feeds quoted along with such luminaries as the National Enquirer to smear Cruz, but let them say anything bad about Trump and they were back to being Liberal crap spewers. Rush was evil until he came over to the Orange side, as were the other former purveyors of punditry formerly considered oracles of Conservatism. The harlots of opinion have named their price. Access to the halls of power, the 'right' cocktail parties, and maybe a comped round or two of golf...
I guess it is all what you want to hear.
-
Now this part I sorta agree with. I've been saying for a year or so that Trump's number one motivation is ego. He wants to be President because for him it represents the most significant manner in which his ego may yet be stroked. Yes, he is very much into himself.
But here's a thought. Perhaps his need for self affirmation will make him try to be the best President he can possibly be? He's got money. He's had plenty of women and has a d@mn fine one now. About the only way he can get further adulation is to gain people's respect by being what he believes is the best sort of President possible.
That is my theory of what is likely to happen, because I don't see him having any other motivation. In this case, there is a very good chance that his excessive narcissism will work in our favor.
That is a possibility, but only if he succeeds. He does not deal with failure well. Start stiffing defense contractors and it all falls apart.
No, that's quite enough. Hillary is bad on a level of which most people cannot conceive. She is Cotton Mather bad. She is Vlad the Impaler bad.
Vlad the impaler got the nickname from impaling the Muslim (Ottoman) hordes who were invading his country. He was ruthless enough about that that it was a success. I'd say he knew how to handle the Islamic invasion better than any living national leader, and he is considered a national hero where he did. If anyone is considering playing pattycake with that situation, they have the wrong approach.
Hillary knows the other way to deal with them. Bribe them. Baksheesh is a time-homored method, although it amounts to tribute for being left alone. Yes, she's a foul creature and we know this because she has had the opportunity to show it. We have another in the wings who has the same symptoms of being foul, only without the history of power and opportunity and scrutiny that she has had. I submit that is the biggest difference. She is "Woman who bathes in virgin blood" level of bad. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory)
She is a Lucretia Borgia level of bad. She's a psychotic left wing "Prairie Fire" acolyte Hanoi Jane communist witch type of bad.
She is "anybody but Hillary" bad.
YMMV, but I don't think that is a good basis to choose a national leader on.
I'm not voting for either one of them.
-
@mirraflake
I happen to know that @musiclady is a very nice, older lady, from a generation that generally upheld at least public standards of decorum and behavior better than those of us that are younger. Whatever many men may have said to each other in conversation over the course of their lives, I think it is beneath us to essentially say "you're husband is a dirty old man just like the rest of us." I'm not sure what other spin to put on it other than to say it's just the kind of thing we should not say to such a lady even if you believe it may be true.
And I'd add that while there certainly are many men (and women) who have talked in fairly crude terms about the opposite se, there are also some who do not, and her husband may well be one of those gentlemen with a bit more decorum than most of the rest of us. I think bringing someone's spouse into a conversation and imputing lewd conduct to them is just...not right.
Are we talking about the same @musiclady?
I never pointed out her husband specifically I believe I said most or not all men of wives on this forum have talked about women's bodies among themselves that is quite crude at one time or another...and I still stick with that.
For some reason she believes I think it is ok to grope woman or force kisses which I am 100% against, never did nor hang around men who did.
I NEVER called musiclady any insulting names etc. Not once. Look at the thread from the begining..it is still up. I did call her naive about men.
Again look at the thread and see who started swinging insults and it was not me.
Here is some samples she said about me-show me on that thread were I said any insults to her in the same vein-there is none. I don't insult people on forums.
Musiclady: You really are a creep, aren't you??
You really do think that all men are as vile as you and your boy friends are, don't you?
You are to be pitied. But your wife is whom I am most sorry for.
Musiclady: "Little boy" , "little man"
Musiclady: "stay in the gutter with your boyfriends"
Shall I post her comments bashing my marriage in the worst way numerous times-which she knows nothing about?
I do admit to saying among male friends at times "wow she has a nice a%%" which 99% of most normal men have done and do. Just being honest..and that was my point all along.
My whole thread was about how men and women talk among themselves regarding the opposite sex and how women are on fainting couches as of late over Trumps use of the word "p$$$$y drummed up by the media fervor when in fact woman do the same language the same or worse.
Go on the Facebook page "ladyboners" and see how women talk about mens bodies. If i posted their comments here I would be banned.
@Maj. Bill Martin
@jpsb
@DiogenesLamp
@TomSea
@aligncare
-
Are we talking about the same @musiclady?
I never pointed out her husband specifically I believe I said most or not all men of wives on this forum have talked about women's bodies among themselves that is quite crude at one time or another...and I still stick with that.
For some reason she believes I think it is ok to grope woman or force kisses which I am 100% against, never did nor hang around men who did.
I NEVER called musiclady any insulting names etc. Not once. Look at the thread from the begining..it is still up. I did call her naive about men.
Again look at the thread and see who started swinging insults and it was not me.
Here is some samples she said about me-show me on that thread were I said any insults to her in the same vein-there is none. I don't insult people on forums.
Musiclady: You really are a creep, aren't you??
You really do think that all men are as vile as you and your boy friends are, don't you?
You are to be pitied. But your wife is whom I am most sorry for.
Musiclady: "Little boy" , "little man"
Musiclady: "stay in the gutter with your boyfriends"
Shall I post her comments bashing my marriage in the worst way numerous times-which she knows nothing about?
I do admit to saying among male friends at times "wow she has a nice a%%" which 99% of most normal men have done and do. Just being honest..and that was my point all along.
My whole thread was about how men and women talk among themselves regarding the opposite sex and how women are on fainting couches as of late over Trumps use of the word "p$$$$y drummed up by the media fervor when in fact woman do the same language the same or worse.
Go on the Facebook page "ladyboners" and see how women talk about mens bodies. If i posted their comments here I would be banned.
@Maj. Bill Martin
@jpsb
@DiogenesLamp
@TomSea
@aligncare
Go ahead, call in the troops, but you missed something. At issue wasn't trump using the word p$$$$y, but talking about grabbing them. Dodging the seminal issue does not make for rational discussion. It is just a strawman argument.
-
Go ahead, call in the troops, but you missed something. At issue wasn't trump using the word p$$$$y, but talking about grabbing them. Dodging the seminal issue does not make for rational discussion. It is just a strawman argument.
Look at my post. Numerous times I said that was not the issue-the groping..my point was men and women talk about the opposite sex in very crude terms among themselves (same gender)and some here do not think it happens or it's not the norm.
@Smokin Joe
-
I wish you would spend more time talking to God, and less time denigrating what looks like to me our only hope to avoid American Gestapo.
You can justify idolatry all you like.
It is still an affront to God, the Republic and Liberty that you would place this nation's entire "hope" on a man such as Trump.
Only those who want a messiah or a king think and talk in such terms.
-
Now this part I sorta agree with. I've been saying for a year or so that Trump's number one motivation is ego. He wants to be President because for him it represents the most significant manner in which his ego may yet be stroked. Yes, he is very much into himself.
But here's a thought. Perhaps his need for self affirmation will make him try to be the best President he can possibly be? He's got money. He's had plenty of women and has a d@mn fine one now. About the only way he can get further adulation is to gain people's respect by being what he believes is the best sort of President possible.
That is my theory of what is likely to happen, because I don't see him having any other motivation. In this case, there is a very good chance that his excessive narcissism will work in our favor.
My advice? Stick to this line of argument. It's a thin enough reed, God knows, but it's plausible and fits with what we do know about Trump's character.
Of course, his definition of "being a good president" might not be ours ....
-
Look at my post. Numerous times I said that was not the issue-the groping..my point was men and women talk about the opposite sex in very crude terms among themselves (same gender)and some here do not think it happens or it's not the norm.
@Smokin Joe
Your perception of what is 'the norm' will be colored by those you hang out with.
Many of us have tried repeatedly to make the point that we obviously don't run in the same circles.
You have a full right to freedom of association, and I'm not judging the folks you hang out with, just saying that making sweeping assumptions based on your personal experience might lead to incorrect conclusions about the folks other people hang out with.
I'm not running with a church crowd, but the folks I know voice their appreciation for the female form in a more erudite or subdued fashion. Believe me, the discussion need not be crude, nor does it necessarily contain references to proposed acts, especially with women who are married, in order to point out the obvious. When you are older, you might understand.
-
==============================
Christians comprise 20% of the voting block.
Baloney. You've been smoking too much Barna.
-
@mirraflake
@Maj. Bill Martin
I just wanted to make sure to let you know that everything mirraflake quoted me as saying was out of context and the comments were made in response to vulgar insults or comments he had made. (Some removed by the mod they were so bad.
At least one of them after he called the gentlemen of this forum homosexals because they didn't treat women like scum.
I just want to keep my name clear. I was angry at his nastiness and perhaps over the top but wanted you to know that his tattle tale post ignored his horrid comments that preceded my responses.
Sorry to bother you but the context is important.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I can attest to everything @musiclady said above as true. There were many witnesses. Of course Trumpsters will deny it, but that does not change it. Musiclady gets targeted because she is very smart and eloquent and logical. She does not back down and gives in proportion to what she gets. She is not a slanderer or a fight starter. But neither is she a wimp, bowing to the demands of others. She is known to show grace and walk away from fights. But she will not let gross error stand, nor should she.
She has said some awfully gracious things about you, too, if I remember correctly. So you should know better.
Thank you so very much!
I was so appalled at the filth spewing on that thread! Thanks for verifying what really happened there.
-
Ann Coulter has ZERO credibility with me. She is disgusting -- she is the problem, not the solution.
Ann Coulter was yesterdays news. Maybe the day before yesterday's news. She was desperate for some attention and press so she chose the Trump Train.
It has gotten her some attention but she will never live it down.
-
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment.
That @txradioguy is an endorsement whether you like it or not.
So.... if he shot someone on Main Street or kicked a puppy, you would still vote for him?
-
Quote from JPSB about Cruz 'endorsing' Trump. Ted Cruz has never mentioned the name of the Pig. Ted Cruz is voting for him because he thinks there is a slight chance that Trump will support Conservative positions more than Hillary will. That's all. I love Ted Cruz but he is wrong on this. We cannot depend on The Pig to support anyone or anything but himself.
-
Did he attend and do well there? Back in the day sending a rebellious male teenager to a military academy was a common practice by the well to do. There were girls schools for the female version of a rebellious teenager. Most of the time the schools did a good job of "domesticating" the teenager. I think the NYMA did a good job at creating a successful and patriotic Donald Trump.
Oh, my goodness ! I cannot believe that you said that. You are truly delusional.
Whatever his parents paid to have their piglet domesticated at that school, they deserve their money back.
Maybe they should do what Donald would do. Sue.
-
I added a line so reread it. I wanted to clarify one part of it.
This part: She does not back down and gives in proportion to what she gets, but only in defense of the truth and not as a weapon.
Thank you for that too RAT Patrol. My moves are definitely on defense... especially when my husband is slandered, I am called stupid or naive, or when every decent man on this forum is smeared with a filthy brush.
I will always stand up for the good people of this forum against the Trump attackers!
Thank you again for standing up for me and the truth.
God bless you!!
-
So.... if he shot someone on Main Street or kicked a puppy, you would still vote for him?
This stupid attempt by the Trump militant to encourage you to betray your principles to vote for a filthy whack job of a person by repeating ad nauseum that all these other 'Conservatives' have endorsed Trump, is to simply reply that we do not give two poops whom Cruz votes for.
He can vote for Santa Claus and it will in no wise affect for whom and for what party candidates I cast my ballot.
I'm no longer on the GOP plantation.
I'm done with them.
My mission now is to get as many Conservatives to vote for and work to establish a Conservative party that exists outside the clutches of the oligarchy in DC.
-
Oh, my goodness ! I cannot believe that you said that. You are truly delusional.
Whatever his parents paid to have their piglet domesticated at that school, they deserve their money back.
Maybe they should do what Donald would do. Sue.
I think your parents should be reimbursed for your education. Whoever educated you was totally incompetent.
-
I think your parents should be reimbursed for your education. Whoever educated you was totally incompetent.
In my line of work I've come across decomposed bodies that are less offensive than you are.
-
Quote from JPSB about Cruz 'endorsing' Trump. Ted Cruz has never mentioned the name of the Pig.
And weren't you just a few comments up complaining about name calling? How hypocritical of you.
Like it or not Ted Cruz has endorsed The Donald because Ted Cruz knows that Hillary would be a disaster for the country and more then likely get us all killed in a war with Russia over Syria.
If you @Emjay want to improve your odds of staying alive, Vote Trump
-
You are just jealous because she is showing you up.
But of course you would think that.
-
And weren't you just a few comments up complaining about name calling? How hypocritical of you.
Yeah never mind the fact that you started the whole mess in this thread.
Like it or not Ted Cruz has endorsed The Donald because Ted Cruz knows that Hillary would be a disaster for the country and more then likely get us all killed in a war with Russia over Syria.
No he didn't endorse him. Seriously...is English your first language? You seem to have a problem grasping the definition of certain words.
If you @Emjay want to improve your odds of staying alive, Vote Trump
Again phrasing. That can be taken several different ways. Several of which won't be taken very well by the Mods.
-
And weren't you just a few comments up complaining about name calling? How hypocritical of you.
Like it or not Ted Cruz has endorsed The Donald because Ted Cruz knows that Hillary would be a disaster for the country and more then likely get us all killed in a war with Russia over Syria.
If you @Emjay want to improve your odds of staying alive, Vote Trump
Just so you know...
You really, REALLY suck at this. I'd advise spending some time on an Eco Nazi forum trolling them. They have a lot to teach wannabee disruptor such as yourself. And coming from a Usenet vet... You genuinely need to up your troll skills before practicing the craft on a forum filled with people that school you every time you drool on your keyboard.
-
Yep, it has become common
He's doing the same thing off the West Coast of the U.S. as well.
All of these intercepts of Bear and Backfire bombers makes me feel like I'm in the 4th grade again. I remember the nightly news reporting on such incidents when I was a kid.
-
You would get along better with everyone if you stopped worrying about how they are going to vote. You get one vote. Do with it whatever you want. But you do not own our votes nor will you insult or intimidate or shame us into surrendering to your preferences.
It is irrelevant to me how anyone else is voting. I don't care if Ted Cruz turned out to be a yellow-bellied sucker. It's his vote. It might affect whether I vote for him again, but it won't persuade me to vote for the vile Mr. TicTac Trump. Neither will anyone else.
And that is the exact reason you and others with that attitude attract the attention of the Trump fanatics. Because if your 'heresy' were to spread, he'd lose even bigger than he will now.
But then there's the other, more self interested reason for their freakout. Even if they change their names on forums after Trump grenades, people will recognize them quickly because they all have a posting style and their keyboard diarrhea has ingrained what they write like in many of us. So they won't be able to hide and just start up again with the next liberal.
Basically they have nowhere to go if Trump loses. They are addicted to arguing with conservatives, addicted to liberal candidates and ideas, and they will impotently try getting their keyboard commando revenge.
But they won't be able to.
-
And weren't you just a few comments up complaining about name calling? How hypocritical of you.
Like it or not Ted Cruz has endorsed The Donald because Ted Cruz knows that Hillary would be a disaster for the country and more then likely get us all killed in a war with Russia over Syria.
If you @Emjay want to improve your odds of staying alive, Vote Trump
I do not believe that calling Donald Trump various names, including pig, is name calling. It is true and descriptive.
I try not to call other posters names, although, as a group I sometimes refer to them as trumsters, trumpettes, zombies, mind-numbed robots, etc.
I may say they live in an alternate universe, are dumb and deluded, are worshipful of an unworthy man or cannot see the truth when it comes to them on a burning bush or in a locker room.
I don't want Hillary to be elected. I've despised her way longer than you have. She will be a disaster. I think she will be for every liberal agenda that comes along and appoint horrible judges.
But I think she's sane.
None of us, including you and including Donald himself, know what Donald Trump would do. He is erratic, easily manipulated and dangerous. He could very well get us into a war.
All this sexual stuff is disgusting and indicative of the worst part of his personal character but probably not dangerous for anyone except 13-year olds and White House interns. It would be a red herring but if it gets people to think twice about voting for The Pig, it is worthwhile.
-
If you @Emjay want to improve your odds of staying alive, Vote Trump
*blink* *blink* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! hee hee BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! heh heh... giggle (sniff)...
Good Lord, what fresh, new, low-rent crap is this?
-
*blink* *blink* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! hee hee BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! heh heh... giggle (sniff)...
Good Lord, what fresh, new, low-rent crap is this?
This the moment you know that Trump is toast. His fans have degenerated to the final stage of fanaticism before the kool aid gets passed around.
-
This the moment you know that Trump is toast. His fans have degenerated to the final stage of fanaticism before the kool aid gets passed around.
Hell, I knew he was toast before the primaries ended...
But that particular comment upthread can only be taken a couple of ways... both of which are in the Cocoa Puffs stratosphere.
-
Hell, I knew he was toast before the primaries ended...
But that particular comment upthread can only be taken a couple of ways... both of which are in the Cocoa Puffs stratosphere.
If he intended it the other way, he should be reminded that AZ is a Castle Doctrine state and Trump supporters are known to be violent/aggressive.
-
If he intended it the other way, he should be reminded that AZ is a Castle Doctrine state and Trump supporters are known to be violent/aggressive.
Yeah, well... AZ ain't alone in that. But that particular brand of bullshalism stops stone-dead west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason Dixon. Guess he'll have to prove it.
-
Yeah, well... AZ ain't alone in that. But that particular brand of bullshalism stops stone-dead west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason Dixon. Guess he'll have to prove it.
Unfortunately I think that their crazier members will indeed try to enact the 'Purge' once he loses. Granted every movement has it's whackjobs. But this particular movement has a lot of them including the full compliment of White supremicist/AltRight types. So violence from them is a given.
-
Unfortunately I think that their crazier members will indeed try to enact the 'Purge' once he loses. Granted every movement has it's whackjobs. But this particular movement has a lot of them including the full compliment of White supremicist/AltRight types. So violence from them is a given.
*Shrugs* Bring it. Too many good ol redneck boys up this way for such a thing. The Aryans around here know better.
-
*Shrugs* Bring it. Too many good ol redneck boys up this way for such a thing. The Aryans around here know better.
I'd say what they 'know' is that this is their last shot for a generation, perhaps ever. No way they lose gracefully and civilize themselves. Besides, they arent that bright to begin with. Thats why they're Alt Right/White power to begin with.
Stupid moves are what they do as a matter of course.
-
Stupid moves are what they do as a matter of course.
Yeah... maybe they'll turn over some cars in the cities, just to show how different they are from BLM - Then back they go to their Moms' basements to continue their wretched rants and miserable lives.
Won't happen here - Aryans here are a tougher breed... but they gotta live here too... They kick up too much fuss, that becomes hard to do.
-
I'm not sure they care that they are driving even the reluctant voters away.
They are not now, nor have they ever been using their brains. It's their emotions that have driven their Trump support, and emotions are not swayed by logic.
...
But the screeches of the Trump faithful are at risk of turning the reluctant away from voting for him.
@musiclady @aligncare
I recall once in a moment of weakness that I was considering the Trump-Pence ticket might actually be okay.
Then I came here and saw a post by a certain cat, and it reminded me that a Trump victory would be terribly enabling to Trump supporters and their bad behavior.
And I realized that was as much a part of the problem as the Cheeto Benito himself. Reading that post gave me resolve to actively oppose Trump as much as Clinton.
-
@musiclady @aligncare
I recall once in a moment of weakness that I was considering the Trump-Pence ticket might actually be okay.
Then I came here and saw a post by a certain cat, and it reminded me that a Trump victory would be terribly enabling to Trump supporters and their bad behavior.
And I realized that was as much a part of the problem as the Cheeto Benito himself. Reading that post gave me resolve to actively oppose Trump as much as Clinton.
@musiclady @aligncare @Suppressed
Fine enjoy president Hillary and all the Marxists she will appoint to the Supreme Court, enjoy all the radical Muslims president Hillary will bring into the USA, enjoy all the illegals pouring over our southern border. And as an extra bonus Hillary might even start WW3 over Syria. You earned president Hillary, enjoy it.
-
@musiclady @aligncare @Suppressed
Fine enjoy president Hillary and all the Marxists she will appoint to the Supreme Court, enjoy all the radical Muslims president Hillary will bring into the USA, enjoy all the illegals pouring over our southern border. And as an extra bonus Hillary might even start WW3 over Syria. You earned president Hillary, enjoy it.
Funny how you won't answer if you voted for Trump in the primary.
Because those who voted for him are the very ones responsible for giving us Hillary. Trump was the only candidate that had higher negatives than Hillary and yet he was the one that could "beat her" we were told.
You gave us Hillary. You had a choice. You can't say "I didn't know". And if you dislike Hillary so much why did you nominate her friend, the one guy that couldn't beat her?
-
Funny how you won't answer if you voted for Trump in the primary.
Because those who voted for him are the very ones responsible for giving us Hillary. Trump was the only candidate that had higher negatives than Hillary and yet he was the one that could "beat her" we were told.
You gave us Hillary. You had a choice. You can't say "I didn't know". And if you dislike Hillary so much why did you nominate her friend, the one guy that couldn't beat her?
You'll never get an answer to that question.
It's too easy for Trump lovers to lie and blame people who actually wanted to beat Hillary and voted for someone who could do it in the primary.
The people who voted for the LOSER in the primary are the people giving us Hillary.
But they can't stop lying and accusing the people more conservative than they are, who are more opposed to Hillary and liberalism than they are, of doing what they, themselves have done.
It's classic projection and denial about who created this mess.
TRUMP did..... and the liberals who nominated him.
(But they won't stop lying. They'll NEVER stop lying).
-
Funny how you won't answer if you voted for Trump in the primary.
Because those who voted for him are the very ones responsible for giving us Hillary. Trump was the only candidate that had higher negatives than Hillary and yet he was the one that could "beat her" we were told.
You gave us Hillary. You had a choice. You can't say "I didn't know". And if you dislike Hillary so much why did you nominate her friend, the one guy that couldn't beat her?
Of all the GOP field, how many had donated to Hillary?
And that's the one they picked...Sheesh!
-
@musiclady @aligncare @Suppressed
Fine enjoy president Hillary and all the Marxists she will appoint to the Supreme Court, enjoy all the radical Muslims president Hillary will bring into the USA, enjoy all the illegals pouring over our southern border. And as an extra bonus Hillary might even start WW3 over Syria. You earned president Hillary, enjoy it.
Interesting you think Hillary would start WWIII over Syria.
Of all the candidates, one demonstrated that when he perceived he had been attacked, he attacked back hard and fast. He also attacked the wrong people. He then lied about that, and doubled down.
I would suspect that is the sort of person who might escalate conflict beyond normally accepted parameters.
-
@musiclady @aligncare @Suppressed
Fine enjoy president Hillary and all the Marxists she will appoint to the Supreme Court, enjoy all the radical Muslims president Hillary will bring into the USA, enjoy all the illegals pouring over our southern border. And as an extra bonus Hillary might even start WW3 over Syria. You earned president Hillary, enjoy it.
I'm not voting for Hillary. I'm voting for one of her opponents.
-
Laura Ingraham: 'Never Trump' stands with Clinton and partial birth (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,230700.0.html)
-
Laura Ingraham: 'Never Trump' stands with Clinton and partial birth (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,230700.0.html)
I imagine this was greeted with great applause at CC...but it just makes you look like a troll here.
Not to mention it has nothing to do with the OP.
-
I imagine this was greeted with great applause at CC...but it just makes you look like a troll here.
Not to mention it has nothing to do with the OP.
He is TBR's version of "Beggers Lice"
-
Laura Ingraham: 'Never Trump' stands with Clinton and partial birth (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,230700.0.html)
YOU stand with pro-abortion TRUMP.
WE, who oppose TRUMP, stand strongly for the LIFE of the unborn.
Sucking the brains out of another human being horrifies pro-lifers.
TRUMP supports partial birth abortion.
And YOU support TRUMP.