|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 28, 2016 10:22:48 GMT -5
I don't like Trump at all. He's damaging the Republicans and crushing a sure victory if it was Rubio or Romney. I think Paul Ryan would have won in a landslide ... not sure why he didn't consider it |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 28, 2016 10:29:47 GMT -5
I don't like Trump at all. He's damaging the Republicans and crushing a sure victory if it was Rubio or Romney. But.... A month before the vote and a dozen woman "come forth" with accusations? Where were they last year and the year before? Why weren't they suing him and singing his evil ways before? Why now, just before the election? Nothing suspicious there at all.....nope.... Trump has a long history of women accusing him assault, going all the way back to his first wife who said in court in 1992 that Trump raped her. In 1997 another woman filed a lawsuit against Trump for sexually harassing her, and grabbing her against her will. And while most of the women claiming to be assaulted only came out after that tape was released there were a few that came out BEFORE the tape, but who didn't get much media attention. Including Temple Taggart McDowell, in May, "Jane Doe" who filed a child rape lawsuit against Trump in June, and Cassandra Searles, also in June. So two women in the 90s, and three more this year before the tape came out. Of the five women who claimed assault before the tape, three have done so in a court of law. Two received settlements not directly related to the assaults. Since the tape another 11 or 12 have come forward. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Oct 28, 2016 12:23:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 28, 2016 13:25:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 28, 2016 15:26:41 GMT -5
Ok then, i guess that Trump is not fit to be president because he might take advantage of a White House intern....
...oh wait.
Or have a mistress on the side....
...oh wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 28, 2016 15:33:26 GMT -5
I don't like Trump at all. He's damaging the Republicans and crushing a sure victory if it was Rubio or Romney. I think Paul Ryan would have won in a landslide ... not sure why he didn't consider it Epic stoooooopid is to scream out and throw a hissy fit by backing a dumpster dive special instead of backing a viable Republican candidate. Ryan should of run and Rubio was a landslide for President. No matter what dirt the Dems could dig up, nothing could possibly be as bad as Clinton. Except Trump. I almost believe that the early campaign was backed by closet Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Oct 31, 2016 3:01:10 GMT -5
I think Paul Ryan would have won in a landslide ... not sure why he didn't consider it Epic stoooooopid is to scream out and throw a hissy fit by backing a dumpster dive special instead of backing a viable Republican candidate. Ryan should of run and Rubio was a landslide for President. No matter what dirt the Dems could dig up, nothing could possibly be as bad as Clinton. Except Trump. I almost believe that the early campaign was backed by closet Democrats. Ryan removed himself from consideration and Rubio has negatives you know zilch about. He may not even win reelection in Florida, especially if Clinton takes the state. This election is important because it affects Canada, not to mention Trump's insane notions about nuclear weapons. On top of that, he's a bigot and misogynist. He stiffs his business partners and his philanthropic contributions are phony. I find some logic in your thought that some Democrats urged him on. They thought he was unelectable because he's such a horrid person. If only you knew that he's such a horrible person. I wouldn't be surprised if he found his Slavic wives Blinka, Katrinka, Stinka, and Melanoma in Central European brothels. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 31, 2016 7:00:30 GMT -5
Ok then, i guess that Trump is not fit to be president because he might take advantage of a White House intern.... ...oh wait. Or have a mistress on the side.... ...oh wait. mistress was codenamed " Energizer" ... being assigned to Hillary Clinton is considered the worst detail in the secret service ... you can take a peek inside the book on this website ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 31, 2016 7:06:16 GMT -5
I think Paul Ryan would have won in a landslide ... not sure why he didn't consider it Epic stoooooopid is to scream out and throw a hissy fit by backing a dumpster dive special instead of backing a viable Republican candidate. Ryan should of run and Rubio was a landslide for President. No matter what dirt the Dems could dig up, nothing could possibly be as bad as Clinton. Except Trump. I almost believe that the early campaign was backed by closet Democrats. We may have had Rob Ford (RIP), but American politics has taken a hit that may take years to recover from ... both Clinton and Trump make a strong case for keeping the 2nd Amendment intact ... at least in a Wild West mindset, anyway ... #ShameofThronesCheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 31, 2016 14:06:09 GMT -5
Trump is Right. This Email Debacle is Worse than Watergate | The Closer with Keith Olbermann
Interesting take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 31, 2016 21:37:29 GMT -5
Epic stoooooopid is to scream out and throw a hissy fit by backing a dumpster dive special instead of backing a viable Republican candidate. Ryan should of run and Rubio was a landslide for President. No matter what dirt the Dems could dig up, nothing could possibly be as bad as Clinton. Except Trump. I almost believe that the early campaign was backed by closet Democrats. We may have had Rob Ford (RIP), but American politics has taken a hit that may take years to recover from ... both Clinton and Trump make a strong case for keeping the 2nd Amendment intact ... at least in a Wild West mindset, anyway ... #ShameofThronesCheers. American political divide is turning into a gulf. I don't think there is any serious chance of widespread violence but I think the crazy end of the spectrum on both sides is getting a bit too much hatred fuel. Sooner or later...... Republican "elite" need to have their heads examined for letting Trump anywhere near them. At least the Democrats have a bit more control, but then, rather then new, moderate blood, they went about crowning a known quantity. They knew from polls that Clinton wasn't trusted or well liked and yet, here we are. It's sort of "hold on to big oak tree" for the next four years......the same four years that I hope to establish a product line and then sell it off. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 31, 2016 22:06:42 GMT -5
Ryan removed himself from consideration and Rubio has negatives you know zilch about. He may not even win reelection in Florida, especially if Clinton takes the state. This election is important because it affects Canada, not to mention Trump's insane notions about nuclear weapons. On top of that, he's a bigot and misogynist. He stiffs his business partners and his philanthropic contributions are phony. I find some logic in your thought that some Democrats urged him on. They thought he was unelectable because he's such a horrid person. If only you knew that he's such a horrible person. I wouldn't be surprised if he found his Slavic wives Blinka, Katrinka, Stinka, and Melanoma in Central European brothels. I know "zilch" although I'm sure you know him personally, possibly an expert? From "deep" Politico and Huffington Talking points? You offered nothing new other then what you think I know, or don't know. So instead of assuming what I don't know, tell me why Rubio negatives are anywhere near the same universe as Clinton or Trump fails? And while you're at it, let me know where you see that I'm not disgusted by Trump. Start from the very top where I start the thread with "Trump as Presidential candidate? Are they kidding?" |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 1, 2016 6:42:16 GMT -5
We may have had Rob Ford (RIP), but American politics has taken a hit that may take years to recover from ... both Clinton and Trump make a strong case for keeping the 2nd Amendment intact ... at least in a Wild West mindset, anyway ... #ShameofThronesCheers. American political divide is turning into a gulf. I don't think there is any serious chance of widespread violence but I think the crazy end of the spectrum on both sides is getting a bit too much hatred fuel. Sooner or later...... Republican "elite" need to have their heads examined for letting Trump anywhere near them. At least the Democrats have a bit more control, but then, rather then new, moderate blood, they went about crowning a known quantity. They knew from polls that Clinton wasn't trusted or well liked and yet, here we are. It's sort of "hold on to big oak tree" for the next four years......the same four years that I hope to establish a product line and then sell it off. *sigh* Four years? You really think this is going away in four years? This is going to be the new norm, man. When John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his VP many people think he threw away the election right then and there. And that may be true. Perhaps we could have beaten Obama with somebody from this planet as his running mate. But he didn't, and people thought it was a colossal mistake. But now I wonder... was it a mistake, or did he simply see the future of the Republican party and hope to cash in on it? Palin begat Bachmann who begat Coulter who begat Carson who begat Trump... or whatever order you want to put them in. The point being that the base of the Republican party embraces these wingnuts, in large numbers, and that base ain't going away. Trump creamed his Republican rivals, quite easily actually, and his supporters haven't gone away. Trump may go away, but the sentiment he embodies won't. My biggest fear isn't that we're going to be holding onto a big oak tree for the next four years... my biggest fear is that the oak tree is really just a sapling, and a big old hurricane is coming. I think this is going to get worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2016 8:43:53 GMT -5
Wingnuts?
About 44% of registered voters identfy themselves as Republlican or leaning Republican. Attaching words like "wingnuts" is a bit over the top.
Canadians as a whole are left of the American population as a whole and tend to identify more with Democrats. Therefore it's not surprising that their "right" politics tend to look like further right to us.
Issues like "gun rights" is a reflexive "are they crazy" reaction by most Canadians. We do not have the American historical context and cultural base with guns and thus see it as an issue mostly based on images of mass murder. Also, becauee Canadians are becomming more urban based, now up in the 82% range, guns are "weapons", not tools for hunting and shooting pleasure. Ergo...those "who cling to their guns" look like wingnuts to most Canadians. Amercans are also beomming more urbanizing but like i said, they start from a very different cultural and historicsl basis with guns.
What we are seeing in American politics is becoming more and more based on race, age and religion. The American right is mostly white, more religious and older. The American left is younger, less religious and more non-white. There is also a education difference that is spun as "those dumb Republicans", which is really based and skewered by age rather then ability. I have lots of wall paper but my father is not dumb.
What is driving the polarization are politics that feed on vilifying and marginilizing. Obamas and Democrats spiels of "clinging to their guns and religion" is a deliberate, calculated rhetoric to identify and villify a segment of the population. Screams of the further left of "white prevlidge" does not fall on deaf ears of whites. The very same whites who now find themselves crashing out of their middle class, good jobs and aging.
Given the above, it's only natural that there will be a counter reaction. Given Obamas 8 years of overt "clinging to their guns and religion" moderate Republican politician are not going to hold much sway to the further end of this devide. Unfortunately, Trump dove right in and feeding on it. That is why Rubios message of unity and moderate politics got him nowhere. Nor Romney.
Will it get worse? Sure it can. It isn't because the Republicans can only find and produce Palins and Bachmanns, it's a political reaction to deliberate marginilization and vilification on a the very same spectrum of people that is losing their living and aging. This isn't politics based on arguable issues, this is politics based on age, color and religion, fundamantal human identifyers.
Palin didn't begat anyone. Bush begat Obama and Obama begat Trump. A moderate, inclusive president and politics wouldn't feul Trumps ascent.
Since the crowning of Hillary was inevitable, i was hoping that a moderate Republican would rise and take the US into more moderate political territory. My number 1 choice was Romney because he had experience, but since he is white, rich and old, shorthand for evil, then Rubio or Kasich would do.
Didn't happen and here we are.
BTW...just for the record, wingnut to me is the "we are killing Gia and humans are a pestilence on our poor planet" cultist......not the guy with a .22 and a rabbit in his hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 1, 2016 9:15:28 GMT -5
Wingnuts? About 44% of registered voters identfy themselves as Republlican or leaning Republican. Attaching words like "wingnuts" is a bit over the top. Is it? Look at what I said: The point being that the base of the Republican party embraces these wingnuts, in large numbers, and that base ain't going away. Trump creamed his Republican rivals, quite easily actually, and his supporters haven't gone away.If you accept the premise that Trump is a wingnut, then you can't deny what I said. The truth is Trump received the most votes of any Republican primary candidate, ever. He continues to enjoy wide-spread support amongst self-identified Republicans, with anywhere from 75-85% of them continuing to support him. That's more than just a "base" actually, it's pretty much the entire party. Whatever the demographics of the Republican party are, or wherever the root causes of that support comes from is largely irrelevant to my point; Trump is a wingnut, and most Republicans still support him. How is what I said wrong, or even over the top? Again, if Trump is a wingnut, and he is being supported by the majority, perhaps even the vast majority, of the Republican base (as opposed to the Republican elite), then what I said is true. There are only two options here; one, he ISN'T being supported by the majority of regular Republicans, or two, he isn't a wingnut. Unfortunately he is being supported, and he is a wingnut. Therefore, hence, ergo... It would be nice to imagine an America where a moderate Republican candidate can come in and offer a real, viable, conservative alternative. Whether it's Rubio, or Kasich, or the Libertarian Johnson, or whoever. But that's not what we have. Instead, we have a Republican base that completely and totally repudiated any hint of moderate Republicanism, and went, alas, for the wingnut. That's the unfortunate reality that America, and indeed the world, has to deal with. They ain't going away. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 1, 2016 12:31:59 GMT -5
What may save the day, eventually, is demographics. Those older, male, white guys are dying off faster than the younger, multicultural voters. We can only hope that happens before Putin is running the US.
That still doesn't solve the greed problem in the US that is at the root of most issues. Will we have a French Revolution again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2016 15:33:47 GMT -5
Wingnuts? About 44% of registered voters identfy themselves as Republlican or leaning Republican. Attaching words like "wingnuts" is a bit over the top. Is it? Look at what I said: The point being that the base of the Republican party embraces these wingnuts, in large numbers, and that base ain't going away. Trump creamed his Republican rivals, quite easily actually, and his supporters haven't gone away.If you accept the premise that Trump is a wingnut, then you can't deny what I said. The truth is Trump received the most votes of any Republican primary candidate, ever. He continues to enjoy wide-spread support amongst self-identified Republicans, with anywhere from 75-85% of them continuing to support him. That's more than just a "base" actually, it's pretty much the entire party. Whatever the demographics of the Republican party are, or wherever the root causes of that support comes from is largely irrelevant to my point; Trump is a wingnut, and most Republicans still support him. How is what I said wrong, or even over the top? Again, if Trump is a wingnut, and he is being supported by the majority, perhaps even the vast majority, of the Republican base (as opposed to the Republican elite), then what I said is true. There are only two options here; one, he ISN'T being supported by the majority of regular Republicans, or two, he isn't a wingnut. Unfortunately he is being supported, and he is a wingnut. Therefore, hence, ergo... It would be nice to imagine an America where a moderate Republican candidate can come in and offer a real, viable, conservative alternative. Whether it's Rubio, or Kasich, or the Libertarian Johnson, or whoever. But that's not what we have. Instead, we have a Republican base that completely and totally repudiated any hint of moderate Republicanism, and went, alas, for the wingnut. That's the unfortunate reality that America, and indeed the world, has to deal with. They ain't going away. Your first mistake is to assume that delegates represent main stream Republicans. Delegates are by definition are far more politicized then the main stream. Thus they live in a hyper partisan world were hyper-partisan rhetoric thrives. See Trump. See Sanders. The difference is that the Democratic elite have much more power to effect an outcome of presidential candidates then Republicans. Thus we get Clinton...and stuck with Trump. Your second mistake is to assume that the majority are voting FOR Trump rather then AGAINST Clinton. Roughly 60% of Trump "supporters" are voting for Trump simply to keep Clinton out of the White House. Roughly 50% of Clinton "supporters" are voting against Trump to keep him out of the White House. Your claims of majorities and vast majorities voting "for Trump" are false. Sorry. Neither candidate has anything near that much support, never mind agreement on their policies or politics. This is why this would of been a landslide for Republicans if they had Rubio/Kasich/Romney running right now. American politics have taken a turn for the worse and far more undercurrent and turbulence then what appears on the surface. Dangerously so. The begets are not spawning begets, to assume do would ignore the fundamental reason why, the voters are not voting for their candidates as much as against the other guy, the parties themselves are feeding walloping helpings of blame, victim-hood, vilification and marginalization. All creating a further and further political chasm.....that will be dangerous if it fully fruition into defacto social chasm. Stay tuned.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2016 15:50:38 GMT -5
What may save the day, eventually, is demographics. Those older, male, white guys are dying off faster than the younger, multicultural voters. We can only hope that happens before Putin is running the US. This would be true if there was a clear line of actual party differences rather then perceived ones. It's easy to feed victimhood and blame when the other side allows Trump a voice. It loses effectivness of the other side had a moderate voice. The biggest disconnect in American politics is that based on race, which of course is fully exploited. Over 90% of black voters support Democrats yet they have far, far more in common with poor whites ...who vote Republicans. Trade unions supporting Democrats to protect their jobs has no basis in reality when Democrats support free trade....and gave China a free pass. See male Clinton. The biggest failure right now is not how great a job Democrats have done, but rather, how poor a job Republican main stream elite has done to undercut the polarization. One more thing..... You and a majority of Canadians didn't like Harper, but right now, Harper would win by a landslide in US. Epic landslide. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 1, 2016 16:21:16 GMT -5
I agree with much of what you say, Cranky. I don't believe most Republicans care for Trump. There are probably a large number who vomit every time he's mentioned. There also appear to be a large number of voters who don't care for Clinton as well. The issue for me is that a 'true' Republican couldn't possibly vote for Trump. If I were a true Republican in the US, I'd vote for governor etc and not vote for President, or spoil that ballot. I'm anything but a fan of Harper's and if Trump was running for the Liberals or NDP, I wouldn't vote for either. In the past, I've picked the Hippo party or Marijuana party when I didn't like the candidates of the 'major' parties. That would send the right message to the RNC. Get a better candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2016 18:37:16 GMT -5
I agree with much of what you say, Cranky. I don't believe most Republicans care for Trump. There are probably a large number who vomit every time he's mentioned. There also appear to be a large number of voters who don't care for Clinton as well. The issue for me is that a 'true' Republican couldn't possibly vote for Trump. If I were a true Republican in the US, I'd vote for governor etc and not vote for President, or spoil that ballot. I'm anything but a fan of Harper's and if Trump was running for the Liberals or NDP, I wouldn't vote for either. In the past, I've picked the Hippo party or Marijuana party when I didn't like the candidates of the 'major' parties. That would send the right message to the RNC. Get a better candidate. Vomit would be an understatement. I have some shooting buddies, yes, we use real guns on barely mortal steel target.....and occasional errant Bambis. The are ALL Republican by vote, mostly based on conservative economics and somewhat conservative social beliefs and I have to tell you, there is no Democrat on the planet that hates Trump more then they do. They too see at exactly as I do and have laid out in this thread. But here is their problem as they see it. Vote for Hillary and you get more of the same policies they don't agree on TOP of their distrust and suspicion of corruption by her. So as much as they hate Trump, yes HATE, they pray if they vote for him that he is all bluster and wont be allowed to stray by both Houses. They like I don't believe that mostly moderate Republicans will allow Trump to go off the tracks. There will be no wall, no trade policies torn up, no ban on anybody wearing different clothing. On top of that, there is the Supreme court that can and will limit any unconstitutional meanderings. Further, BECAUSE rthey are Republican and closer to their Republican politicians, they know that Trump is not what those politicians believe....or support. As for politicians themselves, contrary to media twisting, the vast majority of Republican politicians are moderate. Just like Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives. Although one would never know that if the political diet consisted of biased confirmation in Politico, Huffington or CBC. They too hate Trump but given the Republicans obviously broken road to Presidential candidates, they get Trump. So now what? If they back-stab Trump with a two foot knife, which they really love to do, they lose the segment of voters that is simply not going to be made up by the center and undecided. Survival for a better day versus sure political suicide. So they reluctantly keep quiet and hope that if he becomes President, they will contain him....or if he goes away, the center hasn't been traumatized. So you see that you or I can declare and take a more righteous.......then those who are actually affected by the outcome. As for me.....I like Romney and when he lost, I though that by 2016, Republicans will get their act together and field what I suspected then would be a landslide win. I never saw Trump coming and even six months ago, I thought that they would quietly do a hatchet job on him. Or not so quietly. I didn't care. But they let their highly partisan system and delegates run away with their selection. And here we are..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2016 18:50:39 GMT -5
BTW...here is
The flaw here is those who are motivated to take part in the political process also partisan to rabidly partisan. They tend to reflect the "hard end" of either party. Thus Americans get who THEY think is the right candidate based on their bias, not the greater good.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Nov 2, 2016 10:30:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 2, 2016 10:42:40 GMT -5
Survival for a better day versus sure political suicide. So they reluctantly keep quiet and hope that if he becomes President, they will contain him....or if he goes away, the center hasn't been traumatized. So you see that you or I can declare and take a more righteous.......then those who are actually affected by the outcome. What is particularly scary about Trump and not so much about Clinton, is that he simply would be leader and much of what he 'represents' becomes acceptable to a substantial group of his followers. 'It becomes ok to beat up on people you don't like, simply because you don't like them. It becomes perfectly fine to kill others who don't agree with you. It is ok to rape anyone you want to at any time, because after all, our leader is doing it.' That is the way humans react to their leaders. The leader's values (good and bad) are mimicked as socially acceptable. It's happening right now at Trump rallies and it will get worse if he has the label of 'president' in front of his name. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 2, 2016 12:06:46 GMT -5
Survival for a better day versus sure political suicide. So they reluctantly keep quiet and hope that if he becomes President, they will contain him....or if he goes away, the center hasn't been traumatized. So you see that you or I can declare and take a more righteous.......then those who are actually affected by the outcome. What is particularly scary about Trump and not so much about Clinton, is that he simply would be leader and much of what he 'represents' becomes acceptable to a substantial group of his followers. 'It becomes ok to beat up on people you don't like, simply because you don't like them. It becomes perfectly fine to kill others who don't agree with you. It is ok to rape anyone you want to at any time, because after all, our leader is doing it.' That is the way humans react to their leaders. The leader's values (good and bad) are mimicked as socially acceptable. It's happening right now at Trump rallies and it will get worse if he has the label of 'president' in front of his name. Are you aware that these conventions are open? And that there are "activist" whose stated purpose is to disrupt them? They are LOOKING for trouble and the 11pm news headlines. Which of course intended to feed into the meme of "violent". Even better is to make sure the "activist" are minorities to feed the "they hate minorities". Obviously it works on those who want to believe it. As for "rape anyone anytime" well, that is reactionary hyperbole. I really dislike Hillary but I'm not going to go around and claim she got her position through sexual misconduct. Rape...Trump wives are whores.....yeesh. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 2, 2016 12:23:36 GMT -5
This is what passes as discourse in rallies. Of course, the news spin is "violent Trump supporters" without the context of what happened and how. That seen will be spun as "woman peppered sprayed at Trump rally, Trump supporters are misogynist". If she was black, even better headlines. Disabled and towing a child would be publicity heaven. Of there are the hotheads....on BOTH sides. But.... ...this isn't a "just discovered" tactic. There is a long history of "activist" and news media feeding each other. One wants the news, the other wants the publicity. Unfortunately, truth and balance dies with it. . Last but not least....if you still think these are random events... These is an organization who actually plans and executes "activist" activities. They were taped boasting how they can disrupt Trump rallies and cause mayhem for maximum publicity. They actually train "activist" in how to incite violence but not to be violent themselves. Note video above. www.democracypartners.com/?q=partners/robert-creamerThat's is what is passing as "democracy" these days.... |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 2, 2016 15:30:28 GMT -5
As for "rape anyone anytime" well, that is reactionary hyperbole. I really dislike Hillary but I'm not going to go around and claim she got her position through blow jobs. Or that she "whored" her way to the top. Rape...Trump wives are whores.....yeesh. You know what I mean. Everyday people take their conventions from their leaders. Good and bad. Bad behaviour is not something that needs promoting and Trump epitomizes it. What a drop from Eisenhower to Trump. Wait, Gerald Ford might have been a decent man too. (speaking of Republican presidents here) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 2, 2016 16:55:57 GMT -5
As for "rape anyone anytime" well, that is reactionary hyperbole. I really dislike Hillary but I'm not going to go around and claim she got her position through blow jobs. Or that she "whored" her way to the top. Rape...Trump wives are whores.....yeesh. You know what I mean. Everyday people take their conventions from their leaders. Good and bad. Bad behaviour is not something that needs promoting and Trump epitomizes it. What a drop from Eisenhower to Trump. Wait, Gerald Ford might have been a decent man too. (speaking of Republican presidents here) Drop? More like a nightmare. Trump is the last thing on earth that the Republican party wants. No doubt about it. The only reason why other Republican politicians have not eaten him alive is blowback from a segment of voters that make the difference between winning and....nothing. As the ancient saying that i just made up goes...nothing makes no difference. Where I draw the line is to paint all Republican politicians and particularly voters with his brush. I'm defending that because i truly believe that if it is left unchecked, because that vilification boils to skin colour and religion, it will move past politics and into social devide. Not good for our neighbor...or us. Anywho.....let's see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 4, 2016 14:48:27 GMT -5
I just got reminded by a fellow mod about language....and I needed that reminder.
Politics brings out the worse in me and I suspect a lot of other posters. Still, this is HabRus and we are all capable of conveying our point without resorting to hyperbole or slander or language.
Now if you excuse me....I need to go ding forehead on a hard wall.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 4, 2016 17:05:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 4, 2016 18:04:57 GMT -5
|
|
