Except he is honest about it. All the other guys act like they are nice guys but they rip off the middle class. Trump wants to rip off people who commited a crime illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them and/or people we have a trade deficit with.
I agree. The people who are voting for Trump and Cruz are people who are being reactionary because they're letting anger and fear overpower their judgment.
As I've said before, anyone who actually thinks for any amount of time on the subject would realize that Trump and Cruz (and Carson) are terrible candidates. Because it's obvious. But people aren't thinking.
It's a pity that you don't have any demagogues who isn't named Donald Trump running for the presidency on the Republican's side.
Lack of political experience is a plus these days. What are they going to be experienced in? Ripping off the public?
I mean, Trump certainly has plenty of experience in the ripping people off department. Maybe he's more qualified than we think!
Except he is honest about it. All the other guys act like they are nice guys but they rip off the middle class. Trump wants to rip off people who commited a crime illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them and/or people we have a trade deficit with.
...um...
Trump wants to (destroy?) ...businesses who hire illegal immigrants...
Yea. I'd hate to have someone build a gigantic tower using illegal immigrant labour.
Especial if the illegal workers were, like, actually illegal and not refugees.
Especially if the immigrants were, say, polish, and the tower was named for some yuge looser and was at 725 Fifth Avenue in NY.
Looks like Jeff Sessions is going to endorse Donald Trump.
That is going to be a huge blow for Ted Cruz because Cruz has been trying to woo him over so much. I'd go as far to say that this endorsement is the death blow to Cruz's campaign.
Looks like Jeff Sessions is going to endorse Donald Trump.
That is going to be a huge blow for Ted Cruz because Cruz has been trying to woo him over so much. I'd go as far to say that this endorsement is the death blow to Cruz's campaign.
I guess that explains why Trump didn't want to disavow the KKK on CNN.
I guess that explains why Trump didn't want to disavow the KKK on CNN.
Personally, I've been waiting for him to disavow Hitler. After all, Donald Trump wears pants, an activity Hitler was also known to engage in. Very suspicious, if you ask me.
In fact, we may as well just get it out of the way and ask him to disavow every bad person who's ever lived, one at a time.
I think Donald Trump is a buffoon, but now I want to vote for him just to spite people who think these are the legitimate political questions we should be asking a candidate. Make no mistake: we're getting exactly what we deserve out of this political process. This is the intellectual level we as a species operate on now. I give up; just shoot me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Personally, I've been waiting for him to disavow Hitler. After all, Donald Trump wears pants, an activity Hitler was also known to engage in. Very suspicious, if you ask me.
In fact, we may as well just get it out of the way and ask him to disavow every bad person who's ever lived, one at a time.
I think Donald Trump is a buffoon, but now I want to vote for him just to spite people who think these are the legitimate political questions we should be asking a candidate. Make no mistake: we're getting exactly what we deserve out of this political process. This is the intellectual level we as a species operate on now. I give up; just shoot me.
What, is asking someone if they agree with the endorsements they receive now some sort of Palinesque unfair trick question?
What, is asking someone if they agree with the endorsements they receive now some sort of Palinesque unfair trick question?
It's not a trick question, it's a stupid question. It's a question with only one possible answer, and the only purpose of asking it is to make the candidate jump through a hoop to show what a good boy they are. It's also stupid that voters' opinions seem to turn so significantly on purely rhetorical posturing and signaling:
1) Say you're David Duke, and you live in this universe, i.e. Insane World, where people base their political decisions on the extent to which candidates have condemned wrongthinkers (rather than, say, any particular policy position). Say you want to secure funding for the KKK. Well, just call all the candidates before any major election and say they can pay you $1 million to AVOID your endorsement. Watch the money roll in.
2) There are two things white supremacists can be relied upon to do: hate minorities and vote. Who would you like to win the election? Let's say it's Bernie Sanders. Well, at the first level of analysis, if you're rational, and you believe Bernie's election is the most virtuous outcome, you should be rooting for David Duke to endorse Bernie. On the other hand, if we take the analysis one level upward, SJW virtue signalling requires your candidate to disavow this endorsement in the strongest possible terms. He'd likely lose more SJW votes from failing to properly signal his tribal affiliation than he would gain from the endorsement. Even though the hypothetical SJW defectors would assure a tighter grip on their own most-desired outcome by ignoring tribal virtue signalling!
So we have a situation where virtue signalling actively obstructs actual virtue! This is crazy! There is no other word to describe it! Welcome to Insane World. (BTW, virtue signalling obstructing virtue is pretty much diagnostic as a consequence of SJWism, so add it to that list of symptoms.)
The Western liberal experiment is over, both in the United States and many other countries. Our society in its current form is totally unworthy of the legacy of its founders. We deserve what is about to happen to us, which will be horrible no matter which way it shakes out tribally. And we will not learn anything from it.
It's not a trick question, it's a stupid question. It's a question with only one possible answer, and the only purpose of asking it is to make the candidate jump through a hoop to show what a good boy they are. It's also stupid that voters' opinions seem to turn so significantly on purely rhetorical posturing and signaling:
1) Say you're David Duke, and you live in this universe, i.e. Insane World, where people base their political decisions on the extent to which candidates have condemned wrongthinkers (rather than, say, any particular policy position). Say you want to secure funding for the KKK. Well, just call all the candidates before any major election and say they can pay you $1 million to AVOID your endorsement. Watch the money roll in.
2) There are two things white supremacists can be relied upon to do: hate minorities and vote. Who would you like to win the election? Let's say it's Bernie Sanders. Well, at the first level of analysis, if you're rational, and you believe Bernie's election is the most virtuous outcome, you should be rooting for David Duke to endorse Bernie. On the other hand, if we take the analysis one level upward, SJW virtue signalling requires your candidate to disavow this endorsement in the strongest possible terms. He'd likely lose more SJW votes from failing to properly signal his tribal affiliation than he would gain from the endorsement.
So we have a situation where virtue signalling actively obstructs actual virtue! Welcome to Insane World. (BTW, virtue signalling obstructing virtue is pretty much diagnostic as a consequence of SJWism, so add it to that list of symptoms.)
The Western liberal experiment is over. Our society in its current form is totally unworthy of the legacy of its founders. We deserve what is about to happen to us, which will be horrible no matter which way it shakes out tribally. And we will not learn anything from it.
Lots of candidates receive endorsements or major donations from white supremacists or others. They just say the truth - that they don't at all approve of the KKK. Then they send the money back. It's no big deal.
Sometimes, though, especially in Southern races, groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens endorse a candidate, and that candidate really does embrace that endorsement. Those candidates really do want to advance a white nationalist agenda. In other instances, the candidate isn't a white nationalist, but is happy to support white nationalist causes in exchange for their votes.
It's perfectly reasonable for the public to want to know which category a candidate is in. And it shouldn't be difficult to Trump to say which category he's in. For some inexplicable reason he wanted to pretend he'd never heard of the KKK instead.
If I wanted Sanders to win, and I saw that Duke endorsed Sanders, I would want Sanders to reject that endorsement. Not because of "virtue signaling", but because I would want a candidate to stand up for their values, not pander for votes.
What, is asking someone if they agree with the endorsements they receive now some sort of Palinesque unfair trick question?
2) There are two things white supremacists can be relied upon to do: hate minorities and vote. Who would you like to win the election? Let's say it's Bernie Sanders. Well, at the first level of analysis, if you're rational, and you believe Bernie's election is the most virtuous outcome, you should be rooting for David Duke to endorse Bernie. On the other hand, if we take the analysis one level upward, SJW virtue signalling requires your candidate to disavow this endorsement in the strongest possible terms. He'd likely lose more SJW votes from failing to properly signal his tribal affiliation than he would gain from the endorsement. Even though the hypothetical SJW defectors would assure a tighter grip on their own most-desired outcome by ignoring tribal virtue signalling!
So we have a situation where virtue signalling actively obstructs actual virtue! This is crazy! There is no other word to describe it! Welcome to Insane World. (BTW, virtue signalling obstructing virtue is pretty much diagnostic as a consequence of SJWism, so add it to that list of symptoms.)
'Virtue signalling' is a simple necessity to ensure that the candidate is actually a good candidate. Losing the tiny amount of votes from radicals who don't realize they are endorsing someone who they don't agree with is less important than ensuring that the candidate isn't one of those radicals. And, furthermore, what you are saying is that it's a good thing for politicians to be vague and deceptive in their positions so that they get the most votes, because then they will win right? Isn't it important that the voter, regardless of their views, be sufficiently informed about who they are voting for? Otherwise, who's to say when this practice is good and when not? Everyone has a bias. If we want to limit something, make it illegal, that's the only fair option, because it's not deceptive and harder to abuse.
I expect a candidate to answer for each and every well known politically related group whether they share the views espoused by that group when asked. I don't expect them to be proactive and list them out themselves, because this is impractical, but if asked, it's obviously a worthwhile area to address.
The Western liberal experiment is over, both in the United States and many other countries. Our society in its current form is totally unworthy of the legacy of its founders. We deserve what is about to happen to us, which will be horrible no matter which way it shakes out tribally. And we will not learn anything from it.
The founders who were entirely wealthy white male land and slave owners who thought that the only people who deserved to vote were wealthy white male land owners? I think I am okay with disappointing them.
People put way too much stock into how right the vision of America the founding fathers had considering we have made considerable improvements upon their original plan throughout history and we continue to deal with their blunders to this day.
Also what apocalypse are you talking about? There are problems for sure, but there always have been and our country continues on. Nothing we are facing today is so serious a threat to us that it threatens our very way of life.
The founders who were entirely wealthy white male land and slave owners who thought that the only people who deserved to vote were wealthy white male land owners?
Out of curiosity- Do you know why they restricted voting rights to property owners?
Also- This statement suggests a serious misunderstand of what went on during the Constitutional Convention.
People put way too much stock into how right the vision of America the founding fathers had considering we have made considerable improvements upon their original plan throughout history and we continue to deal with their blunders to this day.
Also what apocalypse are you talking about? There are problems for sure, but there always have been and our country continues on. Nothing we are facing today is so serious a threat to us that it threatens our very way of life.
The collapse of the political system. One of the things this entire election cycle revealed (on both the Democrat and Republican side) is a serious lack of faith in the system from many many people in the country.
A lack of faith in the system is a really bad thing.
People put way too much stock into how right the vision of America the founding fathers had considering we have made considerable improvements upon their original plan throughout history and we continue to deal with their blunders to this day.
What improvements?
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS.
Unless you want to get rid of all of them, you think there has been improvements.
Out of curiosity- Do you know why they restricted voting rights to property owners?
Also- This statement suggests a serious misunderstand of what went on during the Constitutional Convention.
I am quite aware of how the constitutional convention played out and why they choose not give everyone the right to vote but regardless of their reasoning it reads like a huge pile of hypocrisy based on the literature they sent to King George.
Please do not defend the moral shortcomings of the founding fathers as being a product of their time, they were quite adamant about liberty and justice for all.
Letting women and minorities vote, abolishing slavery, you know basic human rights. Are those a thing you are a fan of? Because if you asked the founders it would seem that it didn't make their final cut.
The collapse of the political system. One of the things this entire election cycle revealed (on both the Democrat and Republican side) is a serious lack of faith in the system from many many people in the country.
A lack of faith in the system is a really bad thing.
The political system as a whole is not about to collapse. This lack of faith nothing new, so its pretty odd to say that it is going to destroy us now rather than ten or twenty years ago.
It's not a trick question, it's a stupid question. It's a question with only one possible answer
It's not a question with only one possible answer. It's a question with only one answer that is acceptable to most people in this nation, but it is a question with more than one answer.
And lest we forget who we're talking about, Donald Trump has given many responses that are far from politic.
and the only purpose of asking it is to make the candidate jump through a hoop to show what a good boy they are.
Or to determine whether a candidate supports the KKK. I think that's important to determine when it comes to the presidency. Don't you?
The Western liberal experiment is over, both in the United States and many other countries. Our society in its current form is totally unworthy of the legacy of its founders. We deserve what is about to happen to us, which will be horrible no matter which way it shakes out tribally. And we will not learn anything from it.
So Trump is asked whether he supports white supremacy, and you declare it the end of America AND freedom.
Crashing00, how did you become this detached from reality?
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS.
Unless you want to get rid of all of them, you think there has been improvements.
EVERY one of the amendments wasn't part of the plan of the Founding Fathers? Because the Bill of Rights is included among the amendments to the Constitution.
EVERY one of the amendments wasn't part of the plan of the Founding Fathers? Because the Bill of Rights is included among the amendments to the Constitution.
We're entering into Super Tuesday. We'll see if people wise up, or if they continue to vote Trump. Life is full of surprises. We might just receive one.
Frankly, I am just interested to see Trump fail to get the majority, but get a large enough amount that the rest of the candidates need to please him to get his delegates.
Should be fun.
The collapse of the political system. One of the things this entire election cycle revealed (on both the Democrat and Republican side) is a serious lack of faith in the system from many many people in the country.
A lack of faith in the system is a really bad thing.
The political system that was created long ago was never meant to be run on by parties, or at least a two party system as it is now. As far as the founding fathers themselves, there is always a historian saying that you have to grade things like racism on a curve. Before the word "revolution" every crossed anyone's mind, I am sure colony life was working just fine for the Americas, and after the Constitution was passed, I am grateful to see that that amazing piece of work, the creators at least had the foresight to realize times may change, or new problems may occur.
We're entering into Super Tuesday. We'll see if people wise up, or if they continue to vote Trump. Life is full of surprises. We might just receive one.
I loved the video and no fan of Donald Drumpf, but it's still important to see what the other side has to say:
Any way to verify what John Oliver said compared to what the Drumpf Supporter is arguing in these reddit posts?
The first one at least doesn't seem to be a complaint about what Oliver said. It's complaining about someone saying a his grandfather, Frederick Trump had changed his name. That doesn't appear in Oliver's segment. He quotes a biographer who says a "prescient ancestor" changed it, which the reddit post seems to agree with.
Any way to verify what John Oliver said compared to what the Drumpf Supporter is arguing in these reddit posts?
The first one at least doesn't seem to be a complaint about what Oliver said. It's complaining about someone saying a his grandfather, Frederick Trump had changed his name. That doesn't appear in Oliver's segment. He quotes a biographer who says a "prescient ancestor" changed it, which the reddit post seems to agree with.
The second link (by the same user) is clearly wrong about some things, as well, and seems to be refusing or ignoring any requests for sources for his claims.
The first one at least doesn't seem to be a complaint about what Oliver said. It's complaining about someone saying a his grandfather, Frederick Trump had changed his name. That doesn't appear in Oliver's segment. He quotes a biographer who says a "prescient ancestor" changed it, which the reddit post seems to agree with.
Yeah I think it also completely misses the point. No one cares if someone changes their name or that their ancestor changed their name. The point is to call attention to yet another example of Drumpf's dog whistle racism and also to poke fun at his own narcissism.
All hail Trump, the candidate of choice of the republican party; Well, actually, what's going to happen is pretty simple. Trump has the largest individual voting bloc, and Cruz & Rubio are cannibalizing each others support. If either dropped out yesterday, the other would have a chance. As it stands, Trump is eating enough delegates up that neither of them will be able to win.
Trump is heavily favored to win most of today's contests. Which I think tells us that the Republican party is finally dysfunctional enough that its on the edge of collapse/restructuring. The internal witch hunts and driving ever further rightward, while alienating the new demographic groups that make up the new American normal has left them fractured and weak, to the point they can't drive off a clearly insane candidate because he represents everything they've said was "good".
1. He's an outsider.
2. He's xenophobic.
3. He's a strong "leader"
He represents safety and familiarity to an aging and angrier republican electorate. Really, just the crazy end of the party, but enough of the party is crazy now.
Ice or Fire?
Apparently the republican party ends in fire.
I have been theorizing this for a while, and it reminds me quite a bit about the Whig party in the 1840s-50s. The groups are basically clashing with each other, and there is a reason for that: The party simply has too many opposites. There are many people I know who lean Republican because of the fiscal side, only to be completely turned off by some of the social stances that Republicans state.
That's why I see myself going either Clinton or Sanders. Trump might be the closest thing to a liberal besides Kaisch (who despite probably being the most electable candidate outside of Republicans, never had a chance in hell of getting the nomination), and voting him in the election would be abysmal. I just think Cruz or Rubio would be even worse.
Or the students of his sham "university".
It's a pity that you don't have any demagogues who isn't named Donald Trump running for the presidency on the Republican's side.
...um...
Yea. I'd hate to have someone build a gigantic tower using illegal immigrant labour.
Especial if the illegal workers were, like, actually illegal and not refugees.
Especially if the immigrants were, say, polish, and the tower was named for some yuge looser and was at 725 Fifth Avenue in NY.
What a loooser.
That is going to be a huge blow for Ted Cruz because Cruz has been trying to woo him over so much. I'd go as far to say that this endorsement is the death blow to Cruz's campaign.
I guess that explains why Trump didn't want to disavow the KKK on CNN.
Personally, I've been waiting for him to disavow Hitler. After all, Donald Trump wears pants, an activity Hitler was also known to engage in. Very suspicious, if you ask me.
In fact, we may as well just get it out of the way and ask him to disavow every bad person who's ever lived, one at a time.
I think Donald Trump is a buffoon, but now I want to vote for him just to spite people who think these are the legitimate political questions we should be asking a candidate. Make no mistake: we're getting exactly what we deserve out of this political process. This is the intellectual level we as a species operate on now. I give up; just shoot me.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
What, is asking someone if they agree with the endorsements they receive now some sort of Palinesque unfair trick question?
It's not a trick question, it's a stupid question. It's a question with only one possible answer, and the only purpose of asking it is to make the candidate jump through a hoop to show what a good boy they are. It's also stupid that voters' opinions seem to turn so significantly on purely rhetorical posturing and signaling:
1) Say you're David Duke, and you live in this universe, i.e. Insane World, where people base their political decisions on the extent to which candidates have condemned wrongthinkers (rather than, say, any particular policy position). Say you want to secure funding for the KKK. Well, just call all the candidates before any major election and say they can pay you $1 million to AVOID your endorsement. Watch the money roll in.
2) There are two things white supremacists can be relied upon to do: hate minorities and vote. Who would you like to win the election? Let's say it's Bernie Sanders. Well, at the first level of analysis, if you're rational, and you believe Bernie's election is the most virtuous outcome, you should be rooting for David Duke to endorse Bernie. On the other hand, if we take the analysis one level upward, SJW virtue signalling requires your candidate to disavow this endorsement in the strongest possible terms. He'd likely lose more SJW votes from failing to properly signal his tribal affiliation than he would gain from the endorsement. Even though the hypothetical SJW defectors would assure a tighter grip on their own most-desired outcome by ignoring tribal virtue signalling!
So we have a situation where virtue signalling actively obstructs actual virtue! This is crazy! There is no other word to describe it! Welcome to Insane World. (BTW, virtue signalling obstructing virtue is pretty much diagnostic as a consequence of SJWism, so add it to that list of symptoms.)
The Western liberal experiment is over, both in the United States and many other countries. Our society in its current form is totally unworthy of the legacy of its founders. We deserve what is about to happen to us, which will be horrible no matter which way it shakes out tribally. And we will not learn anything from it.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Lots of candidates receive endorsements or major donations from white supremacists or others. They just say the truth - that they don't at all approve of the KKK. Then they send the money back. It's no big deal.
Sometimes, though, especially in Southern races, groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens endorse a candidate, and that candidate really does embrace that endorsement. Those candidates really do want to advance a white nationalist agenda. In other instances, the candidate isn't a white nationalist, but is happy to support white nationalist causes in exchange for their votes.
It's perfectly reasonable for the public to want to know which category a candidate is in. And it shouldn't be difficult to Trump to say which category he's in. For some inexplicable reason he wanted to pretend he'd never heard of the KKK instead.
If I wanted Sanders to win, and I saw that Duke endorsed Sanders, I would want Sanders to reject that endorsement. Not because of "virtue signaling", but because I would want a candidate to stand up for their values, not pander for votes.
'Virtue signalling' is a simple necessity to ensure that the candidate is actually a good candidate. Losing the tiny amount of votes from radicals who don't realize they are endorsing someone who they don't agree with is less important than ensuring that the candidate isn't one of those radicals. And, furthermore, what you are saying is that it's a good thing for politicians to be vague and deceptive in their positions so that they get the most votes, because then they will win right? Isn't it important that the voter, regardless of their views, be sufficiently informed about who they are voting for? Otherwise, who's to say when this practice is good and when not? Everyone has a bias. If we want to limit something, make it illegal, that's the only fair option, because it's not deceptive and harder to abuse.
I expect a candidate to answer for each and every well known politically related group whether they share the views espoused by that group when asked. I don't expect them to be proactive and list them out themselves, because this is impractical, but if asked, it's obviously a worthwhile area to address.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The founders who were entirely wealthy white male land and slave owners who thought that the only people who deserved to vote were wealthy white male land owners? I think I am okay with disappointing them.
People put way too much stock into how right the vision of America the founding fathers had considering we have made considerable improvements upon their original plan throughout history and we continue to deal with their blunders to this day.
Also what apocalypse are you talking about? There are problems for sure, but there always have been and our country continues on. Nothing we are facing today is so serious a threat to us that it threatens our very way of life.
Out of curiosity- Do you know why they restricted voting rights to property owners?
Also- This statement suggests a serious misunderstand of what went on during the Constitutional Convention.
What improvements?
The collapse of the political system. One of the things this entire election cycle revealed (on both the Democrat and Republican side) is a serious lack of faith in the system from many many people in the country.
A lack of faith in the system is a really bad thing.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS.
Unless you want to get rid of all of them, you think there has been improvements.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Please do not defend the moral shortcomings of the founding fathers as being a product of their time, they were quite adamant about liberty and justice for all.
Letting women and minorities vote, abolishing slavery, you know basic human rights. Are those a thing you are a fan of? Because if you asked the founders it would seem that it didn't make their final cut.
The political system as a whole is not about to collapse. This lack of faith nothing new, so its pretty odd to say that it is going to destroy us now rather than ten or twenty years ago.
Well, except for that one we had to mulligan on.
And lest we forget who we're talking about, Donald Trump has given many responses that are far from politic.
Or to determine whether a candidate supports the KKK. I think that's important to determine when it comes to the presidency. Don't you?
So Trump is asked whether he supports white supremacy, and you declare it the end of America AND freedom.
Crashing00, how did you become this detached from reality?
Well, there are. They're just not doing as well.
EVERY one of the amendments wasn't part of the plan of the Founding Fathers? Because the Bill of Rights is included among the amendments to the Constitution.
The modern ones definitely weren't, so point remains.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Also the 27th!
Wonderful, wonderful takedown of Trump.
We're entering into Super Tuesday. We'll see if people wise up, or if they continue to vote Trump. Life is full of surprises. We might just receive one.
Should be fun.
The political system that was created long ago was never meant to be run on by parties, or at least a two party system as it is now. As far as the founding fathers themselves, there is always a historian saying that you have to grade things like racism on a curve. Before the word "revolution" every crossed anyone's mind, I am sure colony life was working just fine for the Americas, and after the Constitution was passed, I am grateful to see that that amazing piece of work, the creators at least had the foresight to realize times may change, or new problems may occur.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I loved the video and no fan of Donald Drumpf, but it's still important to see what the other side has to say:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/48a3y0/the_true_story_behind_the_donald_drumpf_accusation/
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/48ci1g/after_being_asked_countless_times_heres/
Any way to verify what John Oliver said compared to what the Drumpf Supporter is arguing in these reddit posts?
The first one at least doesn't seem to be a complaint about what Oliver said. It's complaining about someone saying a his grandfather, Frederick Trump had changed his name. That doesn't appear in Oliver's segment. He quotes a biographer who says a "prescient ancestor" changed it, which the reddit post seems to agree with.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Yeah I think it also completely misses the point. No one cares if someone changes their name or that their ancestor changed their name. The point is to call attention to yet another example of Drumpf's dog whistle racism and also to poke fun at his own narcissism.
I have been theorizing this for a while, and it reminds me quite a bit about the Whig party in the 1840s-50s. The groups are basically clashing with each other, and there is a reason for that: The party simply has too many opposites. There are many people I know who lean Republican because of the fiscal side, only to be completely turned off by some of the social stances that Republicans state.
That's why I see myself going either Clinton or Sanders. Trump might be the closest thing to a liberal besides Kaisch (who despite probably being the most electable candidate outside of Republicans, never had a chance in hell of getting the nomination), and voting him in the election would be abysmal. I just think Cruz or Rubio would be even worse.
The GJ way path to no lynching: