At 5/11/16 08:38 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Not an entirely major issue since women will still vote for him despite these comments. His comments are certainly not the worst made by a Republican nominee or Republican politician. Sexist still yes, but at the same time not all women are too keen on Hillary either. Either way he's going to lose a majority of the women vote.

I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in my neck of PA there are a TON of women with Trump 2016 stickers on their cars. I have discussed Trump with a couple of women who normally vote Democratic, but are leaning towards Trump because of how hard Clinton is playing the woman card. One of the things that finally turned me off to the Democrats is how they keep hammering on the same "women's issues" over and over. You know, like jobs, economic growth, or national security are not women's issues. But no, it comes back to ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION over and over. It got to the point (and it seems it is the same with these women) that I was like "They think I'm stupid."

I would like to see a female President some day...just not Clinton. As the women I spoke to understand, despite what the DNC is trying to tell us, the fact that Clinton is female is not a reason to vote for her.

Anyway, back to Trump...Senator Bob Casey knows his state extremely well, and also is much more in tune with his constituents as he is pro-life, pro-God, and pro-gun. He has flat out stated that Clinton will have an uphill climb here, where Trump's anti-free trade and anti-illegal immigration message strongly resonates. From what I have read, Ohio is in the same boat. If the Dems get too smug, they could be in trouble.

At 5/12/16 01:38 PM, Obama2016 wrote: I personally love the irony whenever a BHO supporter pipes off about "Drumpf", as though having a german lineage is any less soluble in America than a post 9-11 Hussein in the White House.

If you listen to the context in which it was first mentioned, it has nothing to do with his lineage outside of how smart his ancestor who changed it to "Trump" was. It also is about the power of the "Trump" name and asks the question of would the man have the same effect if everything else was the same....except his last name was still "Drumpf" that it had never been changed? I think there's merit in that discussion...but you're right, the less thinking folks on the left have taken it and just turned it into an out of context cudgel to attack Trump with because they've pointed out all the other really good reasons not to vote for him and it hasn't really mattered.

At 5/12/16 07:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If you listen to the context in which it was first mentioned, it has nothing to do with his lineage outside of how smart his ancestor who changed it to "Trump" was. It also is about the power of the "Trump" name and asks the question of would the man have the same effect if everything else was the same....except his last name was still "Drumpf" that it had never been changed? I think there's merit in that discussion...but you're right, the less thinking folks on the left have taken it and just turned it into an out of context cudgel to attack Trump with because they've pointed out all the other really good reasons not to vote for him and it hasn't really mattered.

Well, like many other immigrants (including my ancestors), it was probably changed for assimilation purposes, as well as being easier to pronounce. My original maiden name was a long unwieldy Polish one. The final version still gets butchered, but is only two syllables so it's at least easier to say and spell.

But yeah, both of you are correct. There's going to be a reality check for those folks at some point once they're exposed to the world outside of their bubbles and the fact that not everyone thinks like them. Incidentally enough, that's one of the things that brought down the Romney campaign: cherry-picking sources for confirmation bias and surrounding the campaign with sycophants. We're seeing the same thing with Sanders and his supporters, and I wonder if it'll bleed over into the Clinton campaign.

At 5/12/16 10:45 PM, Obama2016 wrote: But that won't stop people from using labels to evoke the Nazi-paradigm lying dormant within anyone with a cultural memory longer than 70 years.

Drumpf has nothing to do with Nazi overtones at all. It has two angles. One of separating Trump from the glamour and awe his name (not the man) espouses. The other is a much more lowbrow attempt to change an otherwise sleek name into a frumpy one. This also ties in with point one, where you can ask, if this same exact man had a frumpy and not very likeable name, would he be where he is now?

At 5/13/16 05:46 PM, Obama2016 wrote: Sounds like an uninformed opinion. I've heard your side of the aisle compare Trump to Hitler, and now those same people are touting the "Drumpf" nickname. It's people like you that make people like me hate people who are intellectually dishonest.

Are some people making that connection? Probably. However, if you watch the John Oliver skit that STARTED the Drumpf meme, you won't see ANY Nazi overtones or undertones. It's about knocking Trump off his pedestal.

If you want to preach about intellectual hnest, best not to put word in others' mouths.

That was simply the stupidest sentence I've read all year. He gave his name the glamour, not vice versa. The density of dumb ^^there^^ is a monument to the progressive anti-thought.

The Trumo BRAND is synonymous with luxury and opulence. The man is synonymous with arrogance, bankruptcy, and a seriously bad attitude. So, while Trump did create the brand (and he did a damn good job of it) he is in now way like the brand.

Are you serious?

If Trump were exactly the same, but didn't have his Trump brand aura, would he have even been able to get on the primary at all? Trump the man without the very public history is like an angry and loudmouthed Romney. The Apprentice did more to get him into the primaries than any of his actual business accomplishments. In short, Trump's celebrity has allowed him to get into the election, and has allowed him to face minimal consequences for actions and words that would have sunk other candidates.

Something I've been thinking about: if it hasn't already, do you think the Bradley Effect will play a role with Trump?

At 5/13/16 12:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Drumpf has nothing to do with Nazi overtones at all. It has two angles. One of separating Trump from the glamour and awe his name (not the man) espouses. The other is a much more lowbrow attempt to change an otherwise sleek name into a frumpy one. This also ties in with point one, where you can ask, if this same exact man had a frumpy and not very likeable name, would he be where he is now?

Can we please fucking talk about this? Because that was what I was trying to bring up. Then it got derailed. This is why we can't have nice things in this country anymore. Because I try to have a discussion about Trump and what Donald would be if he didn't have that last name....and the resident Republicans here start talking about Germans, and nazis and whatever the fuck else to obfuscate.

At 5/13/16 07:34 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Something I've been thinking about: if it hasn't already, do you think the Bradley Effect will play a role with Trump?

Would you mind filling me in the Bradley Effect? I know I've heard it before, but I can't remember what it is...

At 5/13/16 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Would you mind filling me in the Bradley Effect? I know I've heard it before, but I can't remember what it is...

The Bradley Effect was actually about a black vs. white candidate, but I can see it applying here too. As in, someone supports Trump, but doesn't want to say anything for fear of being labeled stupid/racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc.

I don't think it played into the 2008 election because of the economy tanking. That was the prevailing issue.

At 5/14/16 12:01 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I don't think it played into the 2008 election because of the economy tanking. That was the prevailing issue.

I'm pretty positive it didn't either, since everything suggested it was neck and neck until yeah, as you pointed out the economy went to hell and then it became about not allowing the party in power to continue to be in power afterwards.

I do know that we're already seeing something possibly like that in some of the reported poll data among Trump supporters. Where they are asked about specific policy things Trump has said (the wall, banning muslims, etc. The really racist, xenophobic or unworkable stuff) and they deny that they support any of that. When questioned then as to exactly why they DO support Trump, they say vague things like "he raises some good issues" or that he raises a good single issue....but then they don't clarify what those issue(s) are. I think Trump has exploited the junction between the kind of people who like his rhetoric and "suggestions" (he's now pivoted to say that everything he's said, and will say going forward is just a suggestion now, not a policy aim.) and those that are just looking for an outside protest candidate because they feel the established machinery of both parties have screwed them over (Sanders is getting the same effect I think, but to a much smaller degree over on the other side). The scary thing is that everybody has been consistently wrong about how many of these people there are, and how ready they are to make sure they get that vote cast.

At 5/14/16 07:16 PM, Obama2016 wrote: Are YOU serious?

Yup. I wouldn't have posted that if I wasn't.

Slightly putting on the mod hat....the rest of your post is a blatant trolling on me. Cut it out. I don't have the patience or the give a shit for it. Be better, or just don't reply to me guy. Also, terribly sorry I asked you to find out an easily traceable source for a meme. Damn me for thinking people might care about such things.

At 5/15/16 11:42 AM, Obama2016 wrote: Meh, you wanted to talk about Trumps etymology,

I actually wanted to clarify the point and get the context back away from the rambling wander you and Rydia were doing. I don't much care for the etymology so much as what the Trump name as a brand connotates. Would the man be as successful as he is if he didn't have the name "Trump" and what the word regardless of etymology connotates, and the smoke and mirrors game he's been very successful at to make it mean as it relates to him. Etymology really isn't the point.

You are a hack, Mr Modhat, and being asshurt over my response still isn't my fault. If you still feel powerless, ban me. It's about as important for me to post here as it is for you to change your thinking.

It's not about being asshurt guy, it's about acting better and not crapping on other people's enjoyment because you have nothing better to do then come at me. I see you're now expanding that to at least one other thread with my name on it and that's just not cool. You disagree with me? Fine, you won't be the last, but damn let's keep it to some kind of rules of civility or you can move it off to my PM box so the public doesn't have to watch it or have their enjoyment fucked up.

At 5/16/16 07:47 PM, Obama2016 wrote: As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong here, the only one whose enjoyment was trampled.... well, wasn't mine. If it's cool to jump down my throat for representing the people unaware of niche Trump memes (versus straightforward attacks) and positing a differing viewpoint, so be it.

My issue is more about stopping over in the lounge with your problem with me. I think even in this thread too you brought some old business from another thread in for a nice ad hominem. I got no beef with you disagreeing with me, that's cool, it's going to happen. I also dig having a different viewpoint come up every once in awhile, I just don't think because we have some philosophical differences that needs to end in hostility or trolling each other. Not my bag.

You are not above the shit you spew, and could've PMed me with your objections.

Could have indeed. I actually thought about that today and told myself "well, if the man brings it up, I'm going to give him a mea culpa" so here we go, mea culpa. Mea culpa maxima. I could have handled that better no doubt.

As far as I can tell though, you enjoy confrontation as much as the next guy, and having an audience merely ups the ante.

Funny thing. I really don't. When I was younger I thought I did, I enjoy having an argument sure, as long as we're trading in facts, in ideas, because I think people can honestly learn some things that way. Screaming, insults, that stuff? Nah, not a big fan. Get a fair bit of that from some subordinates at the job and it's not very enjoyable to me. There's a difference between an argument, and a disagreement, and flat out having a fight to me. You're mileage may vary obviously, but I don't know you well enough to say conclusively either way.

I'll try harder to be more sensitive to the current discussion, but I really can't apologize for voicing my opinion.

Nor would I ask you to. I certainly don't want this to be a place where people feel like only a certain idea set is valid....I even more so don't want that happening and people attaching me to it. I get it's pretty difficult to be a Conservative around here, and in a lot of places. All I'd ask man is we just take it back a click before we're doing the internet equivalent of having a street brawl :).

I can apologize if I've set you down a path where coming here and posting is no longer enjoyable. Maybe we can both knock it back a click. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Sure, I'm game. Let's keep it to our philosophical disagreements and try to keep the personal attacks out of it. Sounds like a good enjoyable plan all around.

At 5/23/16 07:29 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Trump has surpassed Clinton in the polls, and is set to keep climbing higher.

The ones I see have him only about .2 points ahead on average. That's scary, but it's also not a commanding lead either.

Kind of a big tipping point. Thoughts?

No it isn't. It's the end of May, the election isn't until November, there's plenty of time for either of them to fuck up massively, or get disqualified due to scandal, or members of their own party to do something so shitty that the blow back will ruin them. This is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle bearing down on this shit so much. Just about every development that changes whatever the prior narrative was is going to be a "major turning point". I expect at least another 5 before the election....and that's a bear minimum guess.

At 5/26/16 01:37 PM, TylerFromTexas wrote: No surprise, but Trump has clinched the GOP nomination.

He's also agreed to a debate with Bernie Sanders...that could go massively badly for the Donald. He better bone up, because he won't be able to dismiss Bernie with a lot of snappy lines and quick lies

I wouldn't count on that debate happening.

At 5/26/16 08:30 PM, MemeFiend3 wrote: But if he plays it right, it could also go very well for him.

Sanders is a better speaker, he's more knowledgeable on the issues. I have a hard time seeing how this goes well for Trump, but then again, the guy has avoided so many traps that should have destroyed him already.

I imagine the majority of Bernie supporters aren't keeping up with Trump much, just what the media reports on him, so It's a great opportunity for him to prove to Bernie supporters that he's not as bad as portrayed in the media, or at least not as bad as Hillary.

This is one of the narratives I don't get. How can the media be portraying Trump badly when he's the one that goes to the media all the time and says all of the terrible stuff everybody says he said? I don't get it. He goes on TV and says "I want to ban all Muslims" at a rally, or on a news show, and then they repeat it....he gets attacked for it....then says "oh I didn't say that" and people believe him! The fuck? It's madness. Reality isn't real anymore.

But I agree, he will have to be very careful not to alienate Bernie supporters.

I'm not sure how many of them are honestly willing to go to Trump if it's a choice between him and Hillary. I think if they won't vote for her, they're more likely to sit the game out.

This debate also seems kind of like a subtle jab at Hillary, like Trump and Bernie consider each other more worthy opponents than Hillary.

I don't necessarily see it that way. It also seems unlikely to happen as I'm sure Trump's people are going to try and talk him out of it since it seems to me Sanders is the only one who could really benefit from it.

At 5/26/16 10:47 PM, MemeFiend3 wrote: Subjective.

Better speaker bit maybe. Knowledge on the issues is actually very easy to measure when you look at the amount of things Trump has either lied about, flip flopped on, walked back, or just shown a plain ignorance of. But he keeps chucking out the idea of fucking with anyone who isn't white, creating the Conservative version of "safe spaces" and generally being a vitriolic ass.

Even in the worst case scenario, he still gets two hours of prime time tv coverage plus thousands of hours of media coverage related to the debate, all for free.

He's got that already even without that. Every time he holds a rally, makes a stump speech, or hell even tweets people are there to cover it and point out all the parts that are wrong but folks like you who support him seem able to just write all that off as some kind of bias or harrassment. Again, the only one who would have gotten anything from it is Bernie.

He's been portrayed non-stop as a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and bigot since the day he's started running, also that he will destroy America and start WWIII.

The racist sexist xenophobe stuff was because his opening speech was about how Mexico was sending "rapists, drug addicts, and criminals" over the border. That he then finished with "and some I assume are good people" doesn't walk back the rest. His main plank is to build a wall, to stop all immigration, and specifically target certain groups based on ethnicity, skin color, and religious affiliation. That is the definition of bigotry, racism, and xenophobia. His attacks on Meghan Kelly and the way women have come out over the years about their general treatment by him are where the sexism comes in.

The evidence is there and it's overwhelming. This is the problem with the way of the world now where people are able to just filter out any information they don't like, or the attitude is "I'm going to form the opinion first....then only find sources that'll prove me right". It's backasswards and it's dangerous. I DO however think that those who don't support Trump have done themselves no favors by constantly going to Reduction to Hitler (though there's parallels) insisting he'll start WW3 (though he could since he's made it clear he wants to deal with other countries like he'd deal with rival business leaders of just saying fuck you and walking away if he doesn't get what he wants). I think it's much better to stick to the things he's said, and the fact that most of his policies can never be enacted without fundamental amendments to The Constitution (The first amendment for instance would need to be radically altered as he's said he wants to make it easier to sue for libel, with what sounds to be a standard of 'If I don't like what you report, it's libel and I can sue you').

But even with that, it seems folks who support Trump don't want to hear anything bad about him, or themselves. They don't want to have a dialogue. They just plug their ears, call you a liar, and if that doesn't work? They'll ball up their fist and take a swing, just like their leader tells them to.

He'll probably never get as many Bernie supporters as Hillary, but I won't underestimate his charisma, or some peoples hatred for Hillary.

I don't. But if you go and actually look at some competent, factual sources, you'll see that a lot of his wins, though big....aren't as big as they seemed. For instance, a lot of his landslide primary wins were in places where the exit polls showed his voters said they had decided pretty early on he was their guy. Conversely he lost in places where voters took a bit longer to decide. So what that says is he's got a very hardcore base to work from, but he's got no long reach data network or anything else to try and get the message out to undecideds and such. He's relying on that the news and others that he decries will simply pick up everything he says and that'll carry him. While there is of course no disputing there's a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment, I still feel that also is a rather vocal minority and they are more likely to try to write in Sanders, or just sit the game out then to completely switch sides to Trump.

I don't think he's going to back out. If he backs out now, it will probably make him look worse than anything he or Bernie will say in the debate.

Then I guess he looks worse, because he backed out and said he won't do it.

Glen Beck suspended from Sirius XM for "inciting" assassination of Donald Trump.

Serves him right. Though the irony is the left has often called for the assassination of people on the right, and seldom get in trouble for it.

At 5/31/16 07:04 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Serves him right. Though the irony is the left has often called for the assassination of people on the right, and seldom get in trouble for it.

When and who? Examples help. Because speaking as someone who tangentially deals with those situations here when somebody on this site decides it's a good idea to call for assassination of the President (usually), I can tell you the SS doesn't fuck around with that.

At 5/31/16 07:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/31/16 07:04 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Serves him right. Though the irony is the left has often called for the assassination of people on the right, and seldom get in trouble for it.

When and who? Examples help. Because speaking as someone who tangentially deals with those situations here when somebody on this site decides it's a good idea to call for assassination of the President (usually), I can tell you the SS doesn't fuck around with that.

The first example I remember was during Bush's run (can't remember if it was the first or 2nd time) someone hung a realistic effigy of him by the neck in their yard, and the left really didn't seem to have a problem with it. And I'm not just talking about politicians. Right supporters have been targeted also.

At 5/31/16 07:22 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: The first example I remember was during Bush's run (can't remember if it was the first or 2nd time) someone hung a realistic effigy of him by the neck in their yard, and the left really didn't seem to have a problem with it. And I'm not just talking about politicians. Right supporters have been targeted also.

So....nothing we can verify then, perfect.

Here's something we can:

http://www.vice.com/read/trump-just-interrupted-his-own-press-conference-to-demand-that-journalists-stop-questioning-him

This was my favorite part right here:

'Trump and Llamas have publicly traded barbs in the past. On Tuesday, when Llamas asked why Trump had called him names on TV, Trump replied, "You're a sleaze because you know the facts, and you know the facts well."'

So that just confirms what myself, and other's who aren't fans of Mr. Trump and his rhetoric have said all along: Mr. Trump dislikes the facts, and he likes people who can throw them in his face effectively even less.

When it comes to Donald Trump I feel I'm the only one in this thread who is strictly down the middle when it comes to him. Completely centrist on him being the President of the United States of America. If it comes down between him and Bernie Sanders, I'll vote for Sanders. If it comes down between him and Hillary, I don't know who I'll vote for. I would like to vote for Gary Johnson, but I know that will be just throwing my vote away because of the Electoral College process and I'm from South Carolina. Although with how popular Trump is I probably will still be throwing my vote away, but that's a different issue entirely from this one and I intend on voting no matter what.

Donald Trump. I've gone through his campaign and I like a lot of his ideas. Yes he has said some psychotic things following along with the psychotic Republican. Despite all of the xenophobic racism (which he has just been saying what many other politicians have just been pussy-footing around with), he has not said the worst thing in the Republican party... Todd Akin has...

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

- Todd Akin

EDIT: Sorry hit the Post Button too soon.

So as far as things Trump has said, I will let it go. Because if I'm going to judge him for that then there are a lot of Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators that need to be brought into question as well. He's been the only one who has just outright said it.

He is pretty much just being loud and bombastic to pull in these voters. I hope he mellows down some, he showed a sign of doing so on the transgender bathroom issue (which is just a distraction from something else the government might be doing).

He has good ideas, he has lied about practically everything, but I feel that he could still become President and I feel that he very well might.

At 6/1/16 12:46 AM, The-Great-One wrote: - Todd Akin

He was punished, and he's gone. Todd Akin is not a good example to make an apologist Trump argument off of. He said a horrible and stupid ass thing, and he paid for it by being booted out in that same election.

So as far as things Trump has said, I will let it go. Because if I'm going to judge him for that then there are a lot of Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators that need to be brought into question as well. He's been the only one who has just outright said it.

I don't understand this argument. This is a NATIONAL election. Congressional races are STATE and LOCAL. If for instance I think some Rep or Senator from SC is a piece of shit and a monster, there is literally NOTHING I can do about it other then maybe make topics here saying "This person is a piece of shit, please don't vote for them because of this". In the end, it's the people of SC that cast the ballots, not me. Trump is a problem I can campaign against and VOTE against. You're analogy isn't correlative.

He is pretty much just being loud and bombastic to pull in these voters. I hope he mellows down some, he showed a sign of doing so on the transgender bathroom issue (which is just a distraction from something else the government might be doing).

I don't think so. Trump has always had a thin skin. I've seen him sue people (Bill Maher for instance) simply for making jokes about him with no political office on the line. The racism? Eh, I'm not sure I believe he believes that. Screwing with Freedom of the Press? Oh, I believe 10,000% he's down for some of that. I am not. So he is an enemy of the Constitution because of that. If you want to attack the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights, you are NOT allowed to be President from where I sit. You aren't allowed to invoke the document, you shouldn't even be allowed to fucking run.

He has good ideas,

Like?

he has lied about practically everything,

How can he have good ideas if he's lying about everything? How do you know then that the good ideas aren't the lie and the bad ideas are the truth? He lies, when someone lies, at least from where I sit....I can't believe anything they tell me ever again without verification thereafter.

but I feel that he could still become President and I feel that he very well might.

I do too....that's why I'm still in this thread pointing out every damn thing he does wrong to make sure it doesn't happen. He scares me more then anybody else.

At 6/1/16 05:06 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I don't understand this argument. This is a NATIONAL election. Congressional races are STATE and LOCAL. If for instance I think some Rep or Senator from SC is a piece of shit and a monster, there is literally NOTHING I can do about it other then maybe make topics here saying "This person is a piece of shit, please don't vote for them because of this". In the end, it's the people of SC that cast the ballots, not me. Trump is a problem I can campaign against and VOTE against. You're analogy isn't correlative.

I understand this now. Trump should represent the majority of the country and not only certain aspects.

I don't think so. Trump has always had a thin skin. I've seen him sue people (Bill Maher for instance) simply for making jokes about him with no political office on the line. The racism? Eh, I'm not sure I believe he believes that. Screwing with Freedom of the Press? Oh, I believe 10,000% he's down for some of that. I am not. So he is an enemy of the Constitution because of that. If you want to attack the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights, you are NOT allowed to be President from where I sit. You aren't allowed to invoke the document, you shouldn't even be allowed to fucking run.

That I can agree with on the Freedom of the Press. As for other stuff, yeah he does have some thin skin, he didn't used to though which surprises me honestly.

He has good ideas,

Like?

His Tax Reform Plan and Healthcare Reform. There are good ideas in both of those. Do they need to be tweaked? Yes. Can they work? Absolutely.

How can he have good ideas if he's lying about everything? How do you know then that the good ideas aren't the lie and the bad ideas are the truth? He lies, when someone lies, at least from where I sit....I can't believe anything they tell me ever again without verification thereafter.

That we can never truly know with anybody running for President. That's where our better judgment comes in. I was referring more towards his attacks on different candidates, immigrants, vaccinations, etc.

I do too....that's why I'm still in this thread pointing out every damn thing he does wrong to make sure it doesn't happen. He scares me more then anybody else.

If he becomes President it won't scare me. A person becoming President isn't scary. No matter which side says it. People say that Obama has been a scary President, the same with Bush Jr.. People are saying that it will be scary if Hillary becomes elected. We have our three branches for a reason. Let him try and get crazy in that position, it won't help him at all.

At 6/1/16 05:38 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I understand this now. Trump should represent the majority of the country and not only certain aspects.

That's a problem that's as old as the hills all over.

That I can agree with on the Freedom of the Press. As for other stuff, yeah he does have some thin skin, he didn't used to though which surprises me honestly.

Do you think he didn't because you have some concrete examples where he didn't? Or is it a case of where people didn't pay as much attention/he didn't have social media to document every nasty thought he has at any given moment? Yes, there is a difference.

His Tax Reform Plan and Healthcare Reform. There are good ideas in both of those. Do they need to be tweaked? Yes. Can they work? Absolutely.

Actually... ....not.....so much. That's the problem with listening to Trump, then not fact checking what he's saying. Remember, Trump himself admitted yesterday he and facts aren't on friendly terms.

That we can never truly know with anybody running for President. That's where our better judgment comes in. I was referring more towards his attacks on different candidates, immigrants, vaccinations, etc.

If a candidate is lying, caught lying....why would you trust anything else they say unless you can then vet it through other sources who don't have any known bias for or against them? Why even give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

If he becomes President it won't scare me. A person becoming President isn't scary. No matter which side says it.

Then you're pretty damn ignorant of the history of the US and some of the utter fuckery, crimes, and scumbaggery that have been done in that office.

People say that Obama has been a scary President, the same with Bush Jr..

Yeah....but see, some people actually have facts and evidence to back that up. And some people are just being partisan, or racist, or generally stupid. Not all criticism is created equal. The equivalency you posit is again a false one.

People are saying that it will be scary if Hillary becomes elected. We have our three branches for a reason. Let him try and get crazy in that position, it won't help him at all.

Again, ignorance. A lot of his dumbness could be stopped (which is why if you think electing him and believing he can do everything, or even most things he says makes you a fool setting yourself up for a good hard cry) but the amount of stuff he could do through some sympathetic congresspersons who can shield themselves from consequence, or flat out by executive order, is enough to make me believe we cannot for a second give him the opportunity to push his luck.

I laughed so hard at this last night that I accidentally woke up my husband. Whoops.

At 5/31/16 07:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/31/16 07:22 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: The first example I remember was during Bush's run (can't remember if it was the first or 2nd time) someone hung a realistic effigy of him by the neck in their yard, and the left really didn't seem to have a problem with it. And I'm not just talking about politicians. Right supporters have been targeted also.

So....nothing we can verify then, perfect.

How's this for verification?
And this?
There's been so many people threatening Trump on Twitter it's unbelievable. This is the most well known one (the thug was a convicted felon with guns on top of that).
Threatened to bomb Trump rally.

It'll take digging but more is out there.

At 6/4/16 09:49 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: It'll take digging but more is out there.

Those are good. That's all I was really asking for honestly, if you're going to claim something, prove the claim. Which you did.

Just goes to show what I've said forever: There's idiots all over, that's why I dislike doing the big generalizations of "all liberals" or "all conservatives" hey, how about we just stay on the candidates and the good and bad they do during their job interview process?

At 6/4/16 10:59 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Violence at trump rallies = violent trump, or so it is commonly conveyed as.

I don't think it's unfair to try to make a connection between the guy who openly opines "maybe that protester should have been roughed up" and "a protester actually getting roughed up."