Okay, so clearly you don't care about that. So, besides having no experience, an unstable temperament, authoritarian-leaning policies, and a history of flip-flops or outright lies, why exactly do you support Trump? Follow-up: would you prefer Trump to, say, John Kasich or Mitt Romney?
It doesn't matter. It's Trump and Clinton right now. If Gary Johnson or another third party candidate become relevant, we'll see. But for now, it's down to those two. And yes, I prefer Trump to Clinton. He's a businessman, he's intelligent, and quite frankly, people said it was absurd Reagan was an actor and became president, or Arnold becoming governor of California. For all her "experience", Clinton failed and considering her sabotage of Sanders, and the present division in the DNC, I'd question how qualified she is to even have the nomination, let alone the presidency.
Trump is a businessman, yes, but I'm not sure why, even if he were a good businessman (as described elsewhere in the thread, he'd've made more money by sticking his money in an index fund and forgetting about it than doing business) that would be better qualification for Presidency than being Secretary of State. If he's intelligent, it's intelligence combined with impulsiveness and rashness, which are not qualities I'd desire in a President. And if division in one's party signals one shouldn't have the nomination, then you should be questioning Trump's nomination just as much as Clinton, if not more.
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?
Okay, so clearly you don't care about that. So, besides having no experience, an unstable temperament, authoritarian-leaning policies, and a history of flip-flops or outright lies, why exactly do you support Trump? Follow-up: would you prefer Trump to, say, John Kasich or Mitt Romney?
It doesn't matter. It's Trump and Clinton right now. If Gary Johnson or another third party candidate become relevant, we'll see. But for now, it's down to those two. And yes, I prefer Trump to Clinton. He's a businessman, he's intelligent, and quite frankly, people said it was absurd Reagan was an actor and became president, or Arnold becoming governor of California. For all her "experience", Clinton failed and considering her sabotage of Sanders, and the present division in the DNC, I'd question how qualified she is to even have the nomination, let alone the presidency.
And if division in one's party signals one shouldn't have the nomination, then you should be questioning Trump's nomination just as much as Clinton, if not more.
Trump was voted in as the nominee. He won all his delegates fair and square, and the RNC had no choice but to honor the voice of their party. The DNC on the other hand has had evidence raised against them for stifling democracy, sabotaging Sanders and shoehorning Hillary into the nomination. Bernie supporters got up and left by the hundreds when she was announced as the nominee - something that neither happened at the RNC or with Trump. So there's no reason to be suspicious of what Trump won and Hillary, arguably, sabotaged.
It is always hilarious how far people will bend over backwards to defend Trump. This is yet another example of Trump being seriously irresponsible with his words and the republicans refuse to see anything wrong with it. and in some cases praise him for his recklessness.
If they were personal emails that were deleted all along, as Hillary claimed, why would Trump's statement about Russia discovering them matter, or be considered treason?
Hmm I don't know maybe because he is asking another country to commit espionage against us. What is unclear about that? Regardless of the actual content of the emails he seems to believe they had classified data on them yet he is asking another country to uncover it. Somehow Trump supporters don't see this as incredibly reckless.
Except it was Clinton's personal email, not a US government server. That's what made it nonsecure. And the content, according to Clinton, was personal, non-government matters. So in reality, he's sarcastically suggesting Russia learn of Clinton's yoga schedule.
Until of course her campaign essentially confirmed that wasn't the content in them after all.
That's fine as a private citizen. He's now running for the highest office in the country. Sarcasm is subjective in terms of understanding. Adding language barriers to that is just irresponsible. To even suggest sarcastically for a foreign power to interfere in our domestic affairs borders on lunacy or sheer incompetence. Words have consequences. They're specific in use and have serious ramifications. To add more of a mess... if a candidate is always being sarcastic... how can anyone take what he says seriously? Hypothetically, if Trump said "we're gonna nuke em all" is he serious or joking? Based off his history in this election so far, no one knows. I consider that to be a big problem when plenty of nuclear powers in the world have a first strike nuclear policy....
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
It is always hilarious how far people will bend over backwards to defend Trump. This is yet another example of Trump being seriously irresponsible with his words and the republicans refuse to see anything wrong with it. and in some cases praise him for his recklessness.
If they were personal emails that were deleted all along, as Hillary claimed, why would Trump's statement about Russia discovering them matter, or be considered treason?
Nobody's accusing him of treason, or he would probably be under investigation for it. Thing is, nobody knows what was in those e-mails, or whether Russia has them. But saying anything like "I hope Russia hacked those e-mails" is rooting against US security interests, and disrespects international law.
It is always hilarious how far people will bend over backwards to defend Trump. This is yet another example of Trump being seriously irresponsible with his words and the republicans refuse to see anything wrong with it. and in some cases praise him for his recklessness.
If they were personal emails that were deleted all along, as Hillary claimed, why would Trump's statement about Russia discovering them matter, or be considered treason?
Nobody's accusing him of treason, or he would probably be under investigation for it. Thing is, nobody knows what was in those e-mails, or whether Russia has them. But saying anything like "I hope Russia hacked those e-mails" is rooting against US security interests, and disrespects international law.
But Hillary claimed they were not government related and were personal emails on her own private, non-government server. So how would that be rooting against US security interests? Unless you agree she was indeed conducting government matters in those deleted emails, and they weren't personal after all. In which case, why did she lie, and why did she delete them before the FBI investigation?
It is always hilarious how far people will bend over backwards to defend Trump. This is yet another example of Trump being seriously irresponsible with his words and the republicans refuse to see anything wrong with it. and in some cases praise him for his recklessness.
If they were personal emails that were deleted all along, as Hillary claimed, why would Trump's statement about Russia discovering them matter, or be considered treason?
Nobody's accusing him of treason, or he would probably be under investigation for it. Thing is, nobody knows what was in those e-mails, or whether Russia has them. But saying anything like "I hope Russia hacked those e-mails" is rooting against US security interests, and disrespects international law.
That's pretty much the impartial and nonbiased way of saying it.
It is always hilarious how far people will bend over backwards to defend Trump. This is yet another example of Trump being seriously irresponsible with his words and the republicans refuse to see anything wrong with it. and in some cases praise him for his recklessness.
If they were personal emails that were deleted all along, as Hillary claimed, why would Trump's statement about Russia discovering them matter, or be considered treason?
Nobody's accusing him of treason, or he would probably be under investigation for it. Thing is, nobody knows what was in those e-mails, or whether Russia has them. But saying anything like "I hope Russia hacked those e-mails" is rooting against US security interests, and disrespects international law.
But Hillary claimed they were not government related and were personal emails on her own private, non-government server. So how would that be rooting against US security interests? Unless you agree she was indeed conducting government matters in those deleted emails, and they weren't personal after all. In which case, why did she lie, and why did she delete them before the FBI investigation?
The US Security interest would be, at the least, having secure servers. It's against the law to hack someone's e-mail, even if it is personal, and even if it's only password protected.
There may be a US interest in protecting classified material, but we don't know whether there was any classified material in the e-mails. Clinton's position is that there wasn't. The opposing position is that there must have been, based on the circumstance of the Clinton camp having deleted them. Trump doesn’t know either way, because he doesn’t have the e-mails.
But basically, just saying “Russia, please hack such and such American Citizen’s e-mail” in itself is rooting against US security interests. You are talking about a foreign state committing an act of cyber espionage against the US, and saying that you hope they do it. It’s just an extremely poor sense of perspective for someone claiming to have US interests at heart, and very disrespectful of the gravity of laws prohibiting cyber crimes.
I always find this tactic of "This wasn't the only person who did this and you didn't specifically call any of them out, thus you don't care about the issue" to be extremely dishonest. My default assumption for human beings is that if one person did something bad, then obviously whomever I'm talking to would condemn someone else who did the exact same thing. I don't assume that because they didn't list a detailed roster of every person who's ever committed that act, that it's some kind of political attack rather than an issue of principle.
But it is incredibly suspicious when a single person is suddenly picked out of the crowd and blamed publically for those actions when others who have either done the same actions or worse are getting off scott free.
It seems that most Secretaries of state since the internet really have had issues using private email servers yet it only became an issue when it happened to Hillary and teh republicans decided to use it as a tactic to attack her.
Likewise American Embassies have been attacked a lot over the years but until Benghazi there wasn't any drive to impeach or arrest any of her predecessors. Yet it seems Trump and his supporters want to make an example of her. Largely I suspect in a vain attempt to hide that they have very few positive things that they can talk about with any concrete detail.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I always find this tactic of "This wasn't the only person who did this and you didn't specifically call any of them out, thus you don't care about the issue" to be extremely dishonest. My default assumption for human beings is that if one person did something bad, then obviously whomever I'm talking to would condemn someone else who did the exact same thing. I don't assume that because they didn't list a detailed roster of every person who's ever committed that act, that it's some kind of political attack rather than an issue of principle.
But it is incredibly suspicious when a single person is suddenly picked out of the crowd and blamed publically for those actions when others who have either done the same actions or worse are getting off scott free.
It seems that most Secretaries of state since the internet really have had issues using private email servers yet it only became an issue when it happened to Hillary and teh republicans decided to use it as a tactic to attack her.
Likewise American Embassies have been attacked a lot over the years but until Benghazi there wasn't any drive to impeach or arrest any of her predecessors. Yet it seems Trump and his supporters want to make an example of her. Largely I suspect in a vain attempt to hide that they have very few positive things that they can talk about with any concrete detail.
If any of those former secretaries of state were running for President (or any office, really), the opposing side would probably have used the issue against them also. Likewise with the attacks on the embassies. Benghazi seems to be particularly badly handled to me, but it's probably the case that anything similar would have been used against any former secretary of state that chose to run for higher office. But, I can't remember any other than Clinton who has.
Trump supporters should stop hiding behind this ridiculous defense. He is running for the highest office in the nation do you really want someone who is constantly saying what he doesn't mean in that position? The reality is that your candidate is a hate-mongering liar and if you can't accept that then you should pick another candidate not try to justify his lies, hate speech and misdirection.
Trump is an unqualified con artist on trial for fraud.
I wonder if his opponent was recently on trial for anything?
Not the old "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler" argument. The internet is tired.
Be real son, GhostDad isn't saying everyone he disagrees with is Hitler, he's saying the guy who rose to power in the same style as a classical fascist, quotes neonazi memes, and has mass support from neo-nazi and race-hate groups is doing a worryingly accurate impression of Hitler.
That's without getting into the fact that race-hate groups tend to hide from reasonable society until someone in power says something they feel justifies their bull***** and then they flare up, as we've seen recently with Trump's campaign trail and the Brexit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Well, you're basically using my argument that I'm using to vote for clinton to vote for Trump. So I can't fault the high level logic going on there. But you should look closer at the candidates on both sides and seriously question the scruples of both. It does not look to me like you've done your homework on Trump, that you've read as in depth into him as you have into Clinton. Nothing you wrote about clinton was something that was new to me. I'm aware that two clinton associates went to jail during watergate and one of the people connected to the whole thing committed suicide (anything beyond that is speculation as there's no proof). So, when I acknowledge that Clinton is morally dubious, I mean it. But Trump is amoral. There is no moral code there at all. And a solid study of his past reveals this.
Let me put it this way. Our choice can be compared to having to chose between having an Orzhov Scion (Clinton) as your ruler, or a Rakdos Ringleader (Trump). Which would you prefer to be in charge of your nation? Neither is a very good option, but one is clearly better than the other.
I love this way of wording the current sides. A lot of people seem to be trying to say one side is "good", when at best I see neutral, which is really disappointing.
The DNC on the other hand has had evidence raised against them for stifling democracy, sabotaging Sanders and shoehorning Hillary into the nomination.
Not sure how "convince people to vote A over B" is "stifling Democracy". You can argue about whether the specific tactics used were underhanded, or whether the DNC should have been taking sides at all during the primaries, but the people did vote.
According to Pence, if Trump gets elected he's gonna try and ban abortion across the US by appointing new Supreme Court Justices and overturning Roe vs Wade. [link]
Stock up on coat hangers or other sharps before the rush. [link]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
According to Pence, if Trump gets elected he's gonna try and ban abortion across the US by appointing new Supreme Court Justices and overturning Roe vs Wade. [link]
Yeah, but hey, I'm sure Hillary Clinton's just as bad, right?
-
So, first debate will be September 26. This will be interesting. I anticipate Hillary will clobber Trump, but the fact of the matter is veracity has not actually mattered among Trump supporters, (which, of course it wouldn't, right?) so how much of a difference it will make will be interesting.
I would love to think that Clinton will outshine Trump in the debates and we can finally see this nightmare of an election cycle turn around but I just have a feeling that everyone has likely taken a side at this point. I guess time will tell on this one.
If Trump is smart, he should focus on the debate on getting the issues away from crooked Hilary. It's a tried old tune, and simply making the debate about that will do nothing. Her supporters don't care or don't believe, and his supporters are already there. It was discussed much, much, much earlier in the thread, but Trump is in a very unique position in the debate scenario to call Clinton out for being hawkish, something no other republican candidate could have done. His stance with Bush in the SC debate, and his lack of voting in the war sets up a pretty good attack in the eyes of most moderates. In addition, as someone who has not been a senator, he and his team should be digging through Clinton's past voting records and bringing up anything that can make her look weak to progressives, as that group is the one she has the shakiest grip on.
This is all in a perfect world though. I don't think Trump himself is smart enough to do this, but maybe the people running his campaign will be *shrugs*
This is all in a perfect world though. I don't think Trump himself is smart enough to do this, but maybe the people running his campaign will be *shrugs*
Of course, even if this happened, Trump would have to be willing to listen to them. And we already know Trump hates following any advice other than his.
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Hey, I recently came across this video which talks about many of the reasons why I support Mr. Trump. If you are skeptical of Mr.Trump, I suggest you watch this video: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlPdUafTwAg .
That's quite a long time away for the first debate. I think both campaigns will see little to gain from holding any more than just one, so having the single one little more than a month before the election date seems like what we'll get. The Trump camp won't want their candidate making any more gaffes, and the Clinton camp won't want to needlessly absorb any of Trump's childish taunts.
Hey, I recently came across this video which talks about many of the reasons why I support Mr. Trump. If you are skeptical of Mr.Trump, I suggest you watch this video: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlPdUafTwAg .
So first, props to him for actually trying to present real information on the candidates' platforms. However, whether he knows it or not, he's using a common tactic of people spewing bull*****. Rattle off as many claims as you possibly can as fast as you can, and it's impossible for an opponent to refute all of it simply due to time constraints. Some of the statistics I did manage to catch in the flurry appeared to be things which he has misinterpreted or (possibly unintentionally) misrepresented, but because of the presentation style, it's impossible to check.
He complained a ton about anti-Clinton, but only really mentioned two things as pro-Trump: his tax plan, and anti-immigration policy. But in talking about the gross numbers that would result from Trump's tax plan, he also completely skipped over addressing the biggest problem most people have with it (how it mostly benefits the top 1%), and the fact that the plan to reduce taxes doesn't seem to be paired with any plan to reduce spending, which means increased debt. And when talking about Trump's anti-immigration policy... that's about all he said. That entire section went into why we should kick the brown people out of 'MURICA, and not what Trump actually plans to do about it.
I would love to think that Clinton will outshine Trump in the debates and we can finally see this nightmare of an election cycle turn around but I just have a feeling that everyone has likely taken a side at this point. I guess time will tell on this one.
I don't agree with this. It is quite clear that there are quite a few ardent Trump supporters who would vote for the man no matter what. There are also Hillary supporters. There are also people who will vote Republican or Democrat no matter what. For these people, their minds are made up.
However, they do not constitute the entire country. There are Democrats alienated by Clinton. There are Republicans alienated by Trump. There are moderates who are not sure which of the candidates they want to vote for. There are moderates, such as myself, who are damn sure they're not going to vote for at least one of the candidates, but remain unenthusiastic with the remaining choices.
That's quite a long time away for the first debate. I think both campaigns will see little to gain from holding any more than just one
Don't know what drew you to that conclusion. The Hillary campaign has a great deal to gain from having multiple debates. First of all, Trump doesn't know anything about the world nor has the intellectual curiosity to learn. Second, it's been demonstrated that the more Trump opens his mouth during a debate, the less support he gets.
Conversely, the Trump campaign would have a great deal to gain if Trump were able to demonstrate himself capable of holding his own against Hillary, as opposed to being the person who relies upon insults and bullying to disguise his lack of knowledge.
Speaking of Trump's idoacracy... http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/08/rep_richard_hanna_we_should_all_be_done_with_donald_trump_commentary.html#incart_2box_opinion
It would appear that at least one Republican has had enough. Honestly, I wish the rest of the part would wake up already. Trump is a belligerent bully who insults everyone who disagrees with him. He never admits he is wrong, even when his lies and positions are shown to be false and unsustainable. I can't believe there are people who actually this trigger-happy, hot headed dick as the leader of our country? Clinton certainly isn't an angel, but at least I can be certain she won't have destroyed the world with global nuclear war by the time she finishes her term.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
That's fine as a private citizen. He's now running for the highest office in the country. Sarcasm is subjective in terms of understanding. Adding language barriers to that is just irresponsible. To even suggest sarcastically for a foreign power to interfere in our domestic affairs borders on lunacy or sheer incompetence. Words have consequences. They're specific in use and have serious ramifications. To add more of a mess... if a candidate is always being sarcastic... how can anyone take what he says seriously? Hypothetically, if Trump said "we're gonna nuke em all" is he serious or joking? Based off his history in this election so far, no one knows. I consider that to be a big problem when plenty of nuclear powers in the world have a first strike nuclear policy....
Nobody's accusing him of treason, or he would probably be under investigation for it. Thing is, nobody knows what was in those e-mails, or whether Russia has them. But saying anything like "I hope Russia hacked those e-mails" is rooting against US security interests, and disrespects international law.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
That's pretty much the impartial and nonbiased way of saying it.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
The US Security interest would be, at the least, having secure servers. It's against the law to hack someone's e-mail, even if it is personal, and even if it's only password protected.
There may be a US interest in protecting classified material, but we don't know whether there was any classified material in the e-mails. Clinton's position is that there wasn't. The opposing position is that there must have been, based on the circumstance of the Clinton camp having deleted them. Trump doesn’t know either way, because he doesn’t have the e-mails.
But basically, just saying “Russia, please hack such and such American Citizen’s e-mail” in itself is rooting against US security interests. You are talking about a foreign state committing an act of cyber espionage against the US, and saying that you hope they do it. It’s just an extremely poor sense of perspective for someone claiming to have US interests at heart, and very disrespectful of the gravity of laws prohibiting cyber crimes.
But it is incredibly suspicious when a single person is suddenly picked out of the crowd and blamed publically for those actions when others who have either done the same actions or worse are getting off scott free.
It seems that most Secretaries of state since the internet really have had issues using private email servers yet it only became an issue when it happened to Hillary and teh republicans decided to use it as a tactic to attack her.
Likewise American Embassies have been attacked a lot over the years but until Benghazi there wasn't any drive to impeach or arrest any of her predecessors. Yet it seems Trump and his supporters want to make an example of her. Largely I suspect in a vain attempt to hide that they have very few positive things that they can talk about with any concrete detail.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
If any of those former secretaries of state were running for President (or any office, really), the opposing side would probably have used the issue against them also. Likewise with the attacks on the embassies. Benghazi seems to be particularly badly handled to me, but it's probably the case that anything similar would have been used against any former secretary of state that chose to run for higher office. But, I can't remember any other than Clinton who has.
That's without getting into the fact that race-hate groups tend to hide from reasonable society until someone in power says something they feel justifies their bull***** and then they flare up, as we've seen recently with Trump's campaign trail and the Brexit.
Art is life itself.
I love this way of wording the current sides. A lot of people seem to be trying to say one side is "good", when at best I see neutral, which is really disappointing.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Stock up on coat hangers or other sharps before the rush. [link]
Art is life itself.
-
So, first debate will be September 26. This will be interesting. I anticipate Hillary will clobber Trump, but the fact of the matter is veracity has not actually mattered among Trump supporters, (which, of course it wouldn't, right?) so how much of a difference it will make will be interesting.
This is all in a perfect world though. I don't think Trump himself is smart enough to do this, but maybe the people running his campaign will be *shrugs*
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Of course, even if this happened, Trump would have to be willing to listen to them. And we already know Trump hates following any advice other than his.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Maybe the VP debate will be more issue related.
He complained a ton about anti-Clinton, but only really mentioned two things as pro-Trump: his tax plan, and anti-immigration policy. But in talking about the gross numbers that would result from Trump's tax plan, he also completely skipped over addressing the biggest problem most people have with it (how it mostly benefits the top 1%), and the fact that the plan to reduce taxes doesn't seem to be paired with any plan to reduce spending, which means increased debt. And when talking about Trump's anti-immigration policy... that's about all he said. That entire section went into why we should kick the brown people out of 'MURICA, and not what Trump actually plans to do about it.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
However, they do not constitute the entire country. There are Democrats alienated by Clinton. There are Republicans alienated by Trump. There are moderates who are not sure which of the candidates they want to vote for. There are moderates, such as myself, who are damn sure they're not going to vote for at least one of the candidates, but remain unenthusiastic with the remaining choices.
Don't know what drew you to that conclusion. The Hillary campaign has a great deal to gain from having multiple debates. First of all, Trump doesn't know anything about the world nor has the intellectual curiosity to learn. Second, it's been demonstrated that the more Trump opens his mouth during a debate, the less support he gets.
Conversely, the Trump campaign would have a great deal to gain if Trump were able to demonstrate himself capable of holding his own against Hillary, as opposed to being the person who relies upon insults and bullying to disguise his lack of knowledge.
http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/08/rep_richard_hanna_we_should_all_be_done_with_donald_trump_commentary.html#incart_2box_opinion
It would appear that at least one Republican has had enough. Honestly, I wish the rest of the part would wake up already. Trump is a belligerent bully who insults everyone who disagrees with him. He never admits he is wrong, even when his lies and positions are shown to be false and unsustainable. I can't believe there are people who actually this trigger-happy, hot headed dick as the leader of our country? Clinton certainly isn't an angel, but at least I can be certain she won't have destroyed the world with global nuclear war by the time she finishes her term.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
That sounds better.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane