Finally someone else mentioned it after I've gone over this something like 6 times. Trump isn't perfect and people can rail against him all they like. If his opposition is worse then that means he's the best in the field. The opposition to him is completely bonkers except he's probably going to try to do the things he says he's going to do. The establishment for decades has said they're going to enforce immigration laws and they never do. Trump says he's going to enforce the immigration laws and all of a sudden he's Hitler who's going to put people in gas chambers.
The opposition to Trump makes no sense.
I feel the exact opposite. Support of Trump makes no sense.
I don't care for his opposition but they are leagues better than Trump for a multitude of reasons.
Well, duh. Did you think I'd promote someone with no sources to back up anything? "Why are you voting trump" -provides massive list of sources and reasons- "I KNEW YOU'D DO THIS" okay? Would you rather I told you he's gonna MAGA and pull something out of my backside?
You guys are biased as hell and won't even take a second to look at the reasons we are voting for him. Just because it comes from another site doesn't make it not true. Frankly, I'm pretty much done here as this is a colossal waste of my precious time. I'll see you all in November when whoever you are voting for loses. And they will. Goodnight.
If people wanted to look at infographics, they could Google them. If people ask YOU why YOU'RE voting for Trump, they generally want to hear YOUR personal reasons, not links to other peoples' reasons.
I believe he will push back HARD against all the billions of dollars of drugs flooding into this country across the southern border. Those harmful drugs are wrecking TONS of lives, and killing quite a few human beings in the process. A wall is just one part of the puzzle needed to stop this scourge. Human trafficking is high back and forth across the border. And a HUGE percentage of the latinas--girls and women--coming across the border are sexually assaulted. And yes, there are lots and lots of criminals--legal and illegal--making a tidy profit at la frontera. R and D politicians have turned a blind eye to these problems for decades. Enough is enough.
I believe Trump will try to destroy ISIS, not contain it.
I believe Trump will renegotiate contracts and trade deals, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of MuriKa.
I believe Trump will nominate a conservative justice.
I believe Trump is the most likely candidate to "save" Medicare. VERY tough task, no doubt.
I believe Trump will leave Planned Parenthood alone.
I believe Trump will replace Obamacare with something better.
I believe Trump will improve the economy for blue collar citizens, regardless of race or gender or culture.
I could be wrong on every single item. But I am confident DJT is the cream of the current crop. Mediocrity at the max is NOT Trump's plan.
So, what is Trump going to do? What plans does he have that makes him better than Clinton? Frankly, most of his policies line up with the establishment, including his social policies. Even his supporters don't refer to him as a democrat, as some of them do to Kasich.
DING DING DING!!!
Finally someone else mentioned it after I've gone over this something like 6 times. Trump isn't perfect and people can rail against him all they like. If his opposition is worse then that means he's the best in the field. The opposition to him is completely bonkers except he's probably going to try to do the things he says he's going to do. The establishment for decades has said they're going to enforce immigration laws and they never do. Trump says he's going to enforce the immigration laws and all of a sudden he's Hitler who's going to put people in gas chambers.
The opposition to Trump makes no sense.
You are forgetting that my post and inquiries were completely ignoring how social aspect. My point was that for all of his bluster, he doesn't come off any different than a republican, except for the fact that he is a much more alienating figure to his own base. That < 50% rating is only for independents who identify Republican and actual Republicans. No, I don't think he is going to be the next dictator, but when several of our allies in the world are increasingly concerned about our leader, I think we have fair reason to be worried about how successful of a diplomat Trump would be.
I believe he will push back HARD against all the billions of dollars of drugs flooding into this country across the southern border. Those harmful drugs are wrecking TONS of lives, and killing quite a few human beings in the process. A wall is just one part of the puzzle needed to stop this scourge. Human trafficking is high back and forth across the border. And a HUGE percentage of the latinas--girls and women--coming across the border are sexually assaulted. And yes, there are lots and lots of criminals--legal and illegal--making a tidy profit at la frontear. R and D politicians have turned a blind eye to these pres. Enough is enough.
Oh come on. You can't actually believe the wall idea was serious. It's a terrible idea that sounds like a cool idea. Like building a tunnel to China.
No one is saying illegal immigrants may commit crimes, but most studies found that illegal immigrants do not commit any more crimes than most people. In fact, it is in their best interest to not commit any other crimes, lest they draw attention to themselves.
As far as your beliefs....I can't obviously convince you when you have no reason to back them up, but what makes you think Obamacare will be replaced, when Republicans have been trying for years, only to be shutdown by the Supreme Court? As far as Planned Parenthood, while he admitted that they do more than abortions and much more, he was still very adamant about defunding them in one of the last debates when asked about it.
"This is not to suggest that Trump is blameless in the ugliness that is unfolding. Far from it. A responsible leader tries to calm a volatile situation. Trump has been doing the opposite for months — egging on his supporters to clash with the protesters."
The point of this article is that you shouldn't blame Trump supporters for campaign violence, because you should blame Trump instead. I guess you mucho agree with that?
(Oh, and when it says that "Trump supporters are not targeting Mexicans walking down the street with violence", this is tragically untrue.)
How could he not going against Hillary? Do you see what he has done to the GOP with this election? Bernie is just stupid enough to run independent if he loses the primary. Trump is NOT that stupid. What do you think is gonna happen if he does that? Mind you, Bernie received over $100 mil in donations from his supporters. If I were him I would just drop out go away quietly. But, I'm not Bernie and I have no idea what he's actually going to do. Probably put a new diaper on and run independent, bc' he's just crazy enough to do that. And I really hope he does. Hand the election to Trump or Cruz.
Unless a radical shift happens soon, Cruz is gonna have a very tough time stopping Trump because so many of the remaining states will probably be battles between Kasich and DJT. Maybe, perchance, they can keep The Don from achieving the magical 1237 delegates. But I don't see a realistic way either of them will have more delegates than Trump heading into the convention. If that happens, and the elites shaft Trump, I predict a lot of very yucky consequences for we the people. That will be the straw after the last straw for tens of millions of American citizens. As I said last night, a range of alliances could tilt the deck against Trump and push Cruz over the top. It can happen. I be most interested to see how this all shakes out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Trump says he's going to enforce the immigration laws and all of a sudden he's Hitler who's going to put people in gas chambers.
Nobody's saying he's going to put people in gas chambers. The comparison is not to Hitler in particular, but to common traits displayed by charismatic strongmen again and again all over the world. Caesar was a grandiose self-promoter who told the people they were weak and humiliated, and said that only he could restore their strength and dignity. Napoleon was a grandiose self-promoter who told the people that they were weak and humiliated, and said that only he could restore their strength and dignity. Mussolini was a grandiose self-promoter who told the people they were weak and humiliated, and said that only he could restore their strength and dignity. Putin was a grandiose self-promoter who told the people they were weak and humiliated, and said that only he could restore their strength and dignity. So when Donald Trump the grandiose self-promoter tells the people that they are weak and humiliated, and says that only he can restore their strength and dignity, people with a sense for history are going to say, "Yeah, we've seen this before."
But by all means, go on believing that Trump has your best interests at heart.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Can you stop? why do you think here on a website that gets, at best, 1/30th the traffic as reddit is right and everything from there should be disavowed? You got an answer for that? No, you don't.
yes I do. Its about quality not quantity. I have looked at that page. It is entirely biased, surely you realize this. Just because you have more people echoing the same lie does not turn that lie into a fact.
Also You are starting to sound like Trump, silencing opposing view points and what not.
While our debate forum gets less traffic you have greater variety of viewpoints so you can get a better picture of the issue.
How in the world do you think "Infallible" is silencing you, or anyone else here?
The media OVERWHELMINGLY opposes Trump, and that is without counting those outside the US of A, so their viewpoints are getting covered PLENTY.
But the silver lining is, tens of millions of American citizens know with 100% certainly that the majority of journalists are propagandists. +1 Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Seems self explanatory? Infallible doesn't want to hear the opposing view and is therefore attempting to shut it out, much like Trump does. I'm not sure what you are missing.
So, what is Trump going to do? What plans does he have that makes him better than Clinton? Frankly, most of his policies line up with the establishment, including his social policies. Even his supporters don't refer to him as a democrat, as some of them do to Kasich.
DING DING DING!!!
Finally someone else mentioned it after I've gone over this something like 6 times. Trump isn't perfect and people can rail against him all they like. If his opposition is worse then that means he's the best in the field. The opposition to him is completely bonkers except he's probably going to try to do the things he says he's going to do. The establishment for decades has said they're going to enforce immigration laws and they never do. Trump says he's going to enforce the immigration laws and all of a sudden he's Hitler who's going to put people in gas chambers.
The opposition to Trump makes no sense.
You are forgetting that my post and inquiries were completely ignoring how social aspect. My point was that for all of his bluster, he doesn't come off any different than a republican, except for the fact that he is a much more alienating figure to his own base. That < 50% rating is only for independents who identify Republican and actual Republicans. No, I don't think he is going to be the next dictator, but when several of our allies in the world are increasingly concerned about our leader, I think we have fair reason to be worried about how successful of a diplomat Trump would be.
But, that's the thing. Trump's policies are being attacked by Republicans when his policies aren't really that different. His rhetoric shouldn't matter and yet Republicans are getting all up in arms about it. It just shows that some people prefer polite lies rather than harsh truths.
Re: foreign leaders, I don't put stock in their opinions too much. When I worked in a call center for Vartec Telecommunications we had a center located in The Phillipines (Trump wants to keep jobs in America btw). Not only was the center in the Phillipines demonstratably shown to be a worse performing location than the U.S., it drove up repeat callers and contributed to low customer satisfaction ratings. However eventually my center got shut down because ultimately the one in the Phillipines was just cheaper. Our Filipino associates loved George W. Bush and they openly said it was because he was creating jobs there. Like they literally would say it right over the phone.
So China is "concerned" about a Trump presidency? I'll steal a line from Bernie Sanders: Good they should be. Their days of Taking advantage of trade deals that screw over the American people will come to an end when Trump takes the presidency.
Mexico thinks Trump is bad? They can go to hell. I'm not even gonna cry crocodile tears that a government that provided guidebooks and comics on how to cross into this country illegally is upset that my candidate will enforce immigration law.
It would appear from tonights results that the minority of voters that support Trump is larger than I thought it was. He is now trending at about 40% support among Republican voters. I thought that he would top out at 30-35% of republicans. It is looking increasingly likely that he will reach the 1237 delegates needed to secure the nomination.
I think that it would be in the GOP's best interest to back a third party candidate in that scenario, but I do not think it is likely. The GOP has not stressed long term planning lately.
Anecdotally, most registered republicans I know will switch lines to vote for a woman they generally have an extreme dislike for rather than voting for Trump in a general between the two.
Any registered Republican that votes for Hillary will, IMHO, have taken off the mask and finally revealed their true colors.
It is proper to vote your conscious, but he or she will be an open political opponent and political target from now till "global warming" kills us all dead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
EDIT: OH BOY IF POLITIFACT SAID ITS TRUE IT SURE MUST BE. God status on sources who are never wrong at all ever. -_-
If you were replying to me, I'll point out that my post was in reference to one of your cavalcade of links, which called Politifact hypocritical, and claimed that when Trump and Jeb said the same thing, Politifact rated them differently. But Trump and Jeb said different things and were rated differently for that reason.
Even if Politifact were wrong in their labelling - which, given they cited sources, you can check for yourself; their conclusions look solid to me - they weren't hypocritical. That falsifies one of the links you posted.
But this was my point earlier - do you expect people to read and discuss each one of the links you posted? And if not, why did you post them?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
But the silver lining is, tens of millions of American citizens know with 100% certainly that the majority of journalists are propagandists. +1 Trump.
If the media reported that there was an earthquake in California, would you disbelieve them because they're "propagandists"? Of course not. They'd be reporting the facts.
And when they report that Trump has repeatedly demeaned women based on their appearance and reproductive biology, claimed the Mexican government is deliberately sending us violent criminals as illegal immigrants, told his supporters to beat the crap out of protesters, advocated the deliberate killing of civilian targets by the military, and felt the burning need to comment on his ***** size at a political debate, they are likewise reporting the facts.
I've observed this before in this thread, and I suspect I'll do it again: I'm citing Trump's words and actions here far more than you are. The rosy picture you're painting of Trump does not line up with the facts. It's just that a selective distrust of the media allows you to brush off facts you don't like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So China is "concerned" about a Trump presidency? I'll steal a line from Bernie Sanders: Good they should be. Their days of Taking advantage of trade deals that screw over the American people will come to an end when Trump takes the presidency.
Mexico thinks Trump is bad? They can go to hell. I'm not even gonna cry crocodile tears that a government that provided guidebooks and comics on how to cross into this country illegally is upset that my candidate will enforce immigration law.
Curious what will happen to the price of small manufactured goods in America when they are no longer made for dirt cheap oversees? What will happen to the price of produce when farmers can no longer put out cheap crops from exploiting immigrant labor? Trump wants to pass the price of this change onto the consumer. Make no mistake if Trump starts economic warfare then the American middle and lower classes will be the ones footing the bill.
The media OVERWHELMINGLY opposes Trump, and that is without counting those outside the US of A, so their viewpoints are getting covered PLENTY.
But the silver lining is, tens of millions of American citizens know with 100% certainly that the majority of journalists are propagandists. +1 Trump.
You seem okay with citing Breitbart, though. Is that because they're Trump's - quite possibly paid - sycophants, but not propagandists? Or is it because they're propagandists who are on your side?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
gunOnShoe, I'm not going to get into a tangential dispute about what the Republican Party as a whole does and does not believe and whether their beliefs are justified, but I will say this...
Also here is not that american rights are natural, as was declared in the declaration of Independence, but are instead derived from god, who also gives us a book that says we should kill witches and gay people.
You might want to read the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence again.
I mucho agree with the following article by The Washington Post:
Stop blaming Trump supporters for campaign violence
March 15, 2016
The fact is, if the protesters were holding peaceful protests outside his venues, there would be no violence.
What we are witnessing is the latest example of the American left’s totalitarian instinct to shut down speech that it finds abhorrent. Trump is not the only speaker to be driven off a college campus in recent years. In 2013, student protesters forced Ben Carson to cancel his planned commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University. In 2014, student activists forced Brandeis University to cancel a commencement-day speech by author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Also in 2014, protesters forced former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to cancel her commencement speech at Rutgers University, declaring that “war criminals shouldn’t be honored” by the school.
What do these speakers all have in common? They are a) black and b) conservative. If the Trump protests were about race, then why are left-wing activists equally insistent on stopping black speakers with views they don’t like? Rice didn’t call for a Muslim ban, but she is just as unacceptable to the radical left as Trump.
And the winning logic continues after the above snippet.
I love how the video at the end shows the unprovoked attack on a protester followed by a death threat. Classy. I have been to a Trump rally personally I can assure you people with that kind of sucker punch then threaten ideology are well represented. I don't see how anyone could condone such action. You talk about silencing free speech well there it is. Worst part is they tried to arrest the protester and the assaulter got off with nothing.
Really that video at the end was a very poor choice unless they were trying to prove that Trump supporters are in fact the violent agitators.
Here is the logic you keep using:
Trump supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Trump protester broke the law = Trump's fault. Bernie supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Cop arrested a reporter = Trump's fault. Trump had a rally = bad. Trump cancelled a rally = bad. Trump disavows a former KKK member = bad. Hillary loved Byrd = noble.
Do you see a pattern/problem yet?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Trump supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Trump protester broke the law = Trump's fault. Bernie supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Cop arrested a reporter = Trump's fault. Trump had a rally = bad. Trump cancelled a rally = bad. Trump disavows a former KKK member = bad. Hillary loved Byrd = noble.
Do you see a pattern/problem yet?
Please quote me blaming Trump directly for any of this. Or you know make sure someone says something before you accuse them of saying it perhaps. None of what you just said ever came from me so please don't lie and say that I did... especially about Hillary who I do not like in the slightest.
I believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Is Donald Trump personally responsible for beating up a homeless man and putting him in the hospital? No he is not.
Normally when people say they believe in personal responsibility, it's because they expect people to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, not because they want to excuse responsibility.
Were those three hispanics personally responsible for tearing apart a man's Trump sign and then one of them pulled a gun on the man? Yes they are responsible for that.
Interesting how you keep calling the perpetrators "Hispanics" but the victim is simply a "man".
Yes, these men are responsible for their actions. But you're trying to use this anecdote to say something bigger about illegal immigration. And by your own standard of "personal responsibility" with which you have excused Trump, how could any other illegal immigrants, or any of the people currently in charge of immigration policy, or anyone else whatsoever, be responsible for this attack? Clearly it must be an isolated incident, and we can't draw any conclusions from it. Right?
"This is not to suggest that Trump is blameless in the ugliness that is unfolding. Far from it. A responsible leader tries to calm a volatile situation. Trump has been doing the opposite for months — egging on his supporters to clash with the protesters."
The point of this article is that you shouldn't blame Trump supporters for campaign violence, because you should blame Trump instead. I guess you mucho agree with that?
(Oh, and when it says that "Trump supporters are not targeting Mexicans walking down the street with violence", this is tragically untrue.)
I believe...
I believe...
I believe...
I believe...
I believe...
I believe...
I believe...
This is literally a creed. A recitation of articles of faith.
Trump cancelled the rally in Chicago. Sounds pretty dang responsible to me. If protesters don't want to clash, all they have to do is not illegally attempt to disrupt a DJT rally. Do you comprehend the logic of that sentence? Nobody forced the protesters to start breaking 1 law after the other. They chose to do so.
Agreeing with an article does NOT mean I agree with every single letter, word, and punctuation mark. What a weird standard to wield against me.
Any and all Trump supporters that break the law, should be suitably punished. I have advocated AGAINST initiating violence many times here already.
320 or 330 million people live in America, so finding bad behavior takes zero effort. You won't find me clutching at pearls every time somebody is a meaner.
So "creed" and "articles of faith" are naughty words in your opinion? Am I supposed to feel ashamed and then apologize for daring to disagree with you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Agreeing with an article does NOT mean I agree with every single letter, word, and punctuation mark. What a weird standard to wield against me.
I'm not holding you to agreeing with a single letter, word, or punctuation mark. I'm holding you to agreeing with the central point of the article you posted.
320 or 330 million people live in America, so finding bad behavior takes zero effort.
Okay, if it takes so little effort, find me a racist sucker-punching a black guy at a John Kasich rally. Find me an Indian reporter getting harassed for his race at a Bernie Sanders rally. Find me a homeless Latino getting beaten up in the name of Hillary Clinton.
But the silver lining is, tens of millions of American citizens know with 100% certainly that the majority of journalists are propagandists. +1 Trump.
If the media reported that there was an earthquake in California, would you disbelieve them because they're "propagandists"? Of course not. They'd be reporting the facts.
And when they report that Trump has repeatedly demeaned women based on their appearance and reproductive biology, claimed the Mexican government is deliberately sending us violent criminals as illegal immigrants, told his supporters to beat the crap out of protesters, advocated the deliberate killing of civilian targets by the military, and felt the burning need to comment on his ***** size at a political debate, they are likewise reporting the facts.
I've observed this before in this thread, and I suspect I'll do it again: I'm citing Trump's words and actions here far more than you are. The rosy picture you're painting of Trump does not line up with the facts. It's just that a selective distrust of the media allows you to brush off facts you don't like.
You figured it out Blinking Spirit. I closely watch the media to catch them lying about earthquakes. That was my top point all along. SMH
Trump is equally rude to men and women that oppose and/or treat him poorly. Don't you believe in equality? Glenn Beck said Trump was "psychotic" this morning because Trump texted multiple times that Megyn Kelly is "Crazy Megyn". Wow, what an awful and horrible thing for Trump to say. Heaven forbid anyone call out a journalist at Fox News!!! I nearly fainted upon hearing such coarse language. Trump slings mud more than I like, but I will take a brash and impulsive fighter FOR the country over a super nifty speaker that is AGAINST the country every single day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Facts AND belief inform me.
Is the Mexican gvt responsible for controlling its side of the border or not? Whether sin of commission or omission, they are responsible/guilty.
Using violence against those ALREADY using violence against you is logical and good.
Trump advocated going after the accomplices of terrorists, even if it is a wife or some other family member. How do you figure that is controversial?
Rubio started the hand size comments, and Trump--as he is wont to do--finished it. Crude, but effective as per the recent poll results. Objective enough?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Trump is equally rude to men and women that oppose and/or treat him poorly.
He doesn't tell men that he doesn't like that they only got their job because of their breasts. If you can't see the sexism in claiming a woman got their job only because of their body then there is no hope for you.
Trump advocated going after the accomplices of terrorists, even if it is a wife or some other family member. How do you figure that is controversial?
This is decidedly not what Trump said. Trump said "Families of terrorists" by claiming he meant accomplices and not family you are white washing what he said to make him sound like less of a monster, and you are assuredly a monster if you advocate intentional attacks on civilians. Also, don't come back at me with drone strike collateral damage either that is entirely different than intentionally targeting innocent women and children.
Here is the quote before you try to defend it further: “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” DJT
Posted 10:46 am, March 16, 2016, by Ben Winslow and David Wells, Updated at 12:34pm, March 16, 2016
The decision to cancel the debate followed Donald Trump's announcement on "FOX & Friends" that he would not be appearing. Instead, he said he would be appearing at a pro-Israel group's event on Monday night. Trump dropping out led John Kasich to indicate he would not be appearing at Monday's debate.
Trump slings mud more than I like, but I will take a brash and impulsive fighter FOR the country over a super nifty speaker that is AGAINST the country every single day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Nobody in the race is "against the country". But rebranding political rivals as traitors is yet another common tactic of demagogues, so there's that.
Is the Mexican gvt responsible for controlling its side of the border or not? Whether sin of commission or omission, they are responsible/guilty.
That's not what he said. He said, "the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government." This is false because illegal immigrants are not "the worst elements" (again, by the numbers, they're better elements than the average American) and because they are not "being pushed" (you yourself are now trying to say that the government is only committing sin of omission).
Using violence against those ALREADY using violence against you is logical and good.
That's not what he said. He said that an "obnoxious" "trouble-maker" "should have been roughed up". The person in question was not already using violence against the rally attendees, and Trump's statement does not mention such violence or say anything about self-defense. He said it's okay to strike a man because the man annoys you -- that's it.
Trump advocated going after the accomplices of terrorists, even if it is a wife or some other family member. How do you figure that is controversial?
That's not what he said. He said that "you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families". He says nothing to specify that the families are accomplices. On the contrary, he says we should attack the families because they're what the terrorists "care about". That's textbook collective punishment.
Rubio started the hand size comments, and Trump--as he is wont to do--finished it. Crude, but effective as per the recent poll results. Objective enough?
Rubio didn't start it. Trump's opponents picked up the hand size thing because Trump has been ridiculously sensitive about it for years. He certainly didn't finish it at the debate, and is unlikely ever to finish it while he remains a public figure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The media OVERWHELMINGLY opposes Trump, and that is without counting those outside the US of A, so their viewpoints are getting covered PLENTY.
But the silver lining is, tens of millions of American citizens know with 100% certainly that the majority of journalists are propagandists. +1 Trump.
You seem okay with citing Breitbart, though. Is that because they're Trump's - quite possibly paid - sycophants, but not propagandists? Or is it because they're propagandists who are on your side?
I cite sources from across the political spectrum. Would you prefer I never cite anyone? I research near and far.
Also, citing what journalists/propagandists say does actually move the discussion forward. Combing through statements and nuance and stuff has value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel the exact opposite. Support of Trump makes no sense.
I don't care for his opposition but they are leagues better than Trump for a multitude of reasons.
I believe Trump will try to destroy ISIS, not contain it.
I believe Trump will renegotiate contracts and trade deals, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of MuriKa.
I believe Trump will nominate a conservative justice.
I believe Trump is the most likely candidate to "save" Medicare. VERY tough task, no doubt.
I believe Trump will leave Planned Parenthood alone.
I believe Trump will replace Obamacare with something better.
I believe Trump will improve the economy for blue collar citizens, regardless of race or gender or culture.
I could be wrong on every single item. But I am confident DJT is the cream of the current crop. Mediocrity at the max is NOT Trump's plan.
You are forgetting that my post and inquiries were completely ignoring how social aspect. My point was that for all of his bluster, he doesn't come off any different than a republican, except for the fact that he is a much more alienating figure to his own base. That < 50% rating is only for independents who identify Republican and actual Republicans. No, I don't think he is going to be the next dictator, but when several of our allies in the world are increasingly concerned about our leader, I think we have fair reason to be worried about how successful of a diplomat Trump would be.
Oh come on. You can't actually believe the wall idea was serious. It's a terrible idea that sounds like a cool idea. Like building a tunnel to China.
No one is saying illegal immigrants may commit crimes, but most studies found that illegal immigrants do not commit any more crimes than most people. In fact, it is in their best interest to not commit any other crimes, lest they draw attention to themselves.
As far as your beliefs....I can't obviously convince you when you have no reason to back them up, but what makes you think Obamacare will be replaced, when Republicans have been trying for years, only to be shutdown by the Supreme Court? As far as Planned Parenthood, while he admitted that they do more than abortions and much more, he was still very adamant about defunding them in one of the last debates when asked about it.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The point of this article is that you shouldn't blame Trump supporters for campaign violence, because you should blame Trump instead. I guess you mucho agree with that?
(Oh, and when it says that "Trump supporters are not targeting Mexicans walking down the street with violence", this is tragically untrue.)
This is literally a creed. A recitation of articles of faith.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But by all means, go on believing that Trump has your best interests at heart.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How in the world do you think "Infallible" is silencing you, or anyone else here?
The media OVERWHELMINGLY opposes Trump, and that is without counting those outside the US of A, so their viewpoints are getting covered PLENTY.
But the silver lining is, tens of millions of American citizens know with 100% certainly that the majority of journalists are propagandists. +1 Trump.
Seems self explanatory? Infallible doesn't want to hear the opposing view and is therefore attempting to shut it out, much like Trump does. I'm not sure what you are missing.
But, that's the thing. Trump's policies are being attacked by Republicans when his policies aren't really that different. His rhetoric shouldn't matter and yet Republicans are getting all up in arms about it. It just shows that some people prefer polite lies rather than harsh truths.
Re: foreign leaders, I don't put stock in their opinions too much. When I worked in a call center for Vartec Telecommunications we had a center located in The Phillipines (Trump wants to keep jobs in America btw). Not only was the center in the Phillipines demonstratably shown to be a worse performing location than the U.S., it drove up repeat callers and contributed to low customer satisfaction ratings. However eventually my center got shut down because ultimately the one in the Phillipines was just cheaper. Our Filipino associates loved George W. Bush and they openly said it was because he was creating jobs there. Like they literally would say it right over the phone.
So China is "concerned" about a Trump presidency? I'll steal a line from Bernie Sanders: Good they should be. Their days of Taking advantage of trade deals that screw over the American people will come to an end when Trump takes the presidency.
Mexico thinks Trump is bad? They can go to hell. I'm not even gonna cry crocodile tears that a government that provided guidebooks and comics on how to cross into this country illegally is upset that my candidate will enforce immigration law.
It is proper to vote your conscious, but he or she will be an open political opponent and political target from now till "global warming" kills us all dead.
Even if Politifact were wrong in their labelling - which, given they cited sources, you can check for yourself; their conclusions look solid to me - they weren't hypocritical. That falsifies one of the links you posted.
But this was my point earlier - do you expect people to read and discuss each one of the links you posted? And if not, why did you post them?
And when they report that Trump has repeatedly demeaned women based on their appearance and reproductive biology, claimed the Mexican government is deliberately sending us violent criminals as illegal immigrants, told his supporters to beat the crap out of protesters, advocated the deliberate killing of civilian targets by the military, and felt the burning need to comment on his ***** size at a political debate, they are likewise reporting the facts.
I've observed this before in this thread, and I suspect I'll do it again: I'm citing Trump's words and actions here far more than you are. The rosy picture you're painting of Trump does not line up with the facts. It's just that a selective distrust of the media allows you to brush off facts you don't like.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You might want to read the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence again.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Here is the logic you keep using:
Trump supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Trump protester broke the law = Trump's fault. Bernie supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Cop arrested a reporter = Trump's fault. Trump had a rally = bad. Trump cancelled a rally = bad. Trump disavows a former KKK member = bad. Hillary loved Byrd = noble.
Do you see a pattern/problem yet?
Please quote me blaming Trump directly for any of this. Or you know make sure someone says something before you accuse them of saying it perhaps. None of what you just said ever came from me so please don't lie and say that I did... especially about Hillary who I do not like in the slightest.
M:tG isn't openly advocating political violence.
Interesting how you keep calling the perpetrators "Hispanics" but the victim is simply a "man".
Yes, these men are responsible for their actions. But you're trying to use this anecdote to say something bigger about illegal immigration. And by your own standard of "personal responsibility" with which you have excused Trump, how could any other illegal immigrants, or any of the people currently in charge of immigration policy, or anyone else whatsoever, be responsible for this attack? Clearly it must be an isolated incident, and we can't draw any conclusions from it. Right?
What issue? Race-baiting anecdotes notwithstanding, Trump's claim that illegal immigrants tend towards violent criminality is simply a lie. Immigrants commit fewer crimes than the American general public.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Trump cancelled the rally in Chicago. Sounds pretty dang responsible to me. If protesters don't want to clash, all they have to do is not illegally attempt to disrupt a DJT rally. Do you comprehend the logic of that sentence? Nobody forced the protesters to start breaking 1 law after the other. They chose to do so.
Agreeing with an article does NOT mean I agree with every single letter, word, and punctuation mark. What a weird standard to wield against me.
Any and all Trump supporters that break the law, should be suitably punished. I have advocated AGAINST initiating violence many times here already.
320 or 330 million people live in America, so finding bad behavior takes zero effort. You won't find me clutching at pearls every time somebody is a meaner.
So "creed" and "articles of faith" are naughty words in your opinion? Am I supposed to feel ashamed and then apologize for daring to disagree with you?
Good for you. Please tell Trump.
Okay, if it takes so little effort, find me a racist sucker-punching a black guy at a John Kasich rally. Find me an Indian reporter getting harassed for his race at a Bernie Sanders rally. Find me a homeless Latino getting beaten up in the name of Hillary Clinton.
Yes. Beliefs should be based on reasonable inferences from facts, not on wishful thinking and hot air.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You figured it out Blinking Spirit. I closely watch the media to catch them lying about earthquakes. That was my top point all along. SMH
Trump is equally rude to men and women that oppose and/or treat him poorly. Don't you believe in equality? Glenn Beck said Trump was "psychotic" this morning because Trump texted multiple times that Megyn Kelly is "Crazy Megyn". Wow, what an awful and horrible thing for Trump to say. Heaven forbid anyone call out a journalist at Fox News!!! I nearly fainted upon hearing such coarse language. Trump slings mud more than I like, but I will take a brash and impulsive fighter FOR the country over a super nifty speaker that is AGAINST the country every single day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Facts AND belief inform me.
Is the Mexican gvt responsible for controlling its side of the border or not? Whether sin of commission or omission, they are responsible/guilty.
Using violence against those ALREADY using violence against you is logical and good.
Trump advocated going after the accomplices of terrorists, even if it is a wife or some other family member. How do you figure that is controversial?
Rubio started the hand size comments, and Trump--as he is wont to do--finished it. Crude, but effective as per the recent poll results. Objective enough?
This is decidedly not what Trump said. Trump said "Families of terrorists" by claiming he meant accomplices and not family you are white washing what he said to make him sound like less of a monster, and you are assuredly a monster if you advocate intentional attacks on civilians. Also, don't come back at me with drone strike collateral damage either that is entirely different than intentionally targeting innocent women and children.
Here is the quote before you try to defend it further: “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” DJT
Posted 10:46 am, March 16, 2016, by Ben Winslow and David Wells, Updated at 12:34pm, March 16, 2016
The decision to cancel the debate followed Donald Trump's announcement on "FOX & Friends" that he would not be appearing. Instead, he said he would be appearing at a pro-Israel group's event on Monday night. Trump dropping out led John Kasich to indicate he would not be appearing at Monday's debate.
http://fox13now.com/2016/03/16/gop-presidential-primary-debate-scheduled-for-next-week-has-been-canceled/
Trump shapes the narrative once again, and other folks on the Left and Right then react as best they see fit.
Nobody in the race is "against the country". But rebranding political rivals as traitors is yet another common tactic of demagogues, so there's that.
That's not what he said. He said, "the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government." This is false because illegal immigrants are not "the worst elements" (again, by the numbers, they're better elements than the average American) and because they are not "being pushed" (you yourself are now trying to say that the government is only committing sin of omission).
That's not what he said. He said that an "obnoxious" "trouble-maker" "should have been roughed up". The person in question was not already using violence against the rally attendees, and Trump's statement does not mention such violence or say anything about self-defense. He said it's okay to strike a man because the man annoys you -- that's it.
That's not what he said. He said that "you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families". He says nothing to specify that the families are accomplices. On the contrary, he says we should attack the families because they're what the terrorists "care about". That's textbook collective punishment.
Rubio didn't start it. Trump's opponents picked up the hand size thing because Trump has been ridiculously sensitive about it for years. He certainly didn't finish it at the debate, and is unlikely ever to finish it while he remains a public figure.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, citing what journalists/propagandists say does actually move the discussion forward. Combing through statements and nuance and stuff has value.