An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

[beclende]

I voted for Gary Johnson last election.

I'm putting aside my personal views to save the supreme court this year regardless who the republican nomination is. Of course if Trump gets it, I'm getting my cake and getting to eat it too.

Fair enough, I don't believe Trump can be the savior of the court......he still has time to convince me, but as of late he has been running full steam in the opposite direction.

 

[Tombs]

Fair enough, I don't believe Trump can be the savior of the court......he still has time to convince me, but as of late he has been running full steam in the opposite direction.

Full steam in the opposite direction? Elaborate.

 

[beclende]

Full steam in the opposite direction? Elaborate.

Not on the topic of court nominations, sorry for my lack of clarity. In general I don't trust him now vs a month ago. I had sort of made my peace with with the prospect of him being the nominee after my candidate dropped out and I was in the process upping my level of optimism right up until Trump went full blown Authoritarian on us. It was two? Debates ago when he said our servicemen would follow his orders no matter what they may be just because Trump says so? Then the offer of paying legal fees for those that commit violence at his rallies.....fumbling the initial interview question on David Duke. Slandering Michelle Fields...all of those things bring his character into question for me which causes me to not trust his ability to properly replace Scalia.

 

[Tombs]

Not on the topic of court nominations, sorry for my lack of clarity. In general I don't trust him now vs a month ago. I had sort of made my peace with with the prospect of him being the nominee after my candidate dropped out and I was in the process upping my level of optimism right up until Trump went full blown Authoritarian on us. It was two? Debates ago when he said our servicemen would follow his orders no matter what they may be just because Trump says so? Then the offer of paying legal fees for those that commit violence at his rallies.....fumbling the initial interview question on David Duke. Slandering Michelle Fields...all of those things bring his character into question for me which causes me to not trust his ability to properly replace Scalia.

He corrected his statements on servicemen, granted it's not actually a war crime if the other nation isn't a signatory.

He joked about the whole legal fees ordeal and has since been very clear about telling his audience to not hit people, granted, as adults, they should have known better than to take a joke literally. It appears in that one instance he's considering doing it, and I don't know what to say about that. Maybe he sees it as avoiding being able to be called a liar?

His first interview about Duke he didn't know who Duke was, and has since disavowed over 11 times.

Michelle Fields threw a whiny ranty fit because someone TOUCHED her when she decided to get in Trump's face,
[video=youtube;W7Dd7wjzNsg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Dd7wjzNsg[/video]

She deserves to be slandered to hell and back, especially for faking bruises for pictures.

"Like omg seriously he literally touched me like omg assault, like omg!" Is not what someone says when they're assaulted.

 

[jamil]

When you think you are right, you certainly should stand your ground. Are not we entitled to the same consideration. Is it not just a tiny bit conceited to credit yourself with hawklike clarity of sight and attribute the failure of others to agree with you to their vision being clouded with the koolaid they are drinking?

Oh, I do give the same consideration to people who acknowledge facts even when they tend not to agree with you. But when facts stare people in the face and people justify and rationalize, no. That's kookaid.

And if I thought they could actually pull it off, I'd be concerned.

Oh ye of little faith. The official party of gun control will one day have their way.

I voted for Gary Johnson last election.

I'm putting aside my personal views to save the supreme court this year regardless who the republican nomination is. Of course if Trump gets it, I'm getting my cake and getting to eat it too.

Dude, I hate to break it to you but no one's getting cake this time. We all lose because everyone left in the race are losers.

Fair enough, I don't believe Trump can be the savior of the court......he still has time to convince me, but as of late he has been running full steam in the opposite direction.

Savior of the court? Crap, if by some fluke of chance Trump is elected president, I'm sure Trump's appointed sister won't save the court.

 

[Tombs]

Savior of the court? Crap, if by some fluke of chance Trump is elected president, I'm sure Trump's appointed sister won't save the court.

Gee what do they call a purposefully disingenuous statement again?

 

[jamil]

Gee what do they call a purposefully disingenuous statement again?

Humor.

 

[beclende]

Trump may have rectified all that to your satisfaction, the koolaid went down the wrong way with me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Humor.

You act like he wouldn't do it. I could see him appointing his sister simply for the bragging rights.

 

[jamil]

You act like he wouldn't do it. I could see him appointing his sister simply for the bragging rights.

I answered the question he asked. I didn't see it as particularly relevant to the conversation.

On the conversation, I honestly don't know what he would do. He might nominate his sister. When asked he said she would make a great SCOTUS justice. He's also talked about appointing conservatives. Given that he's not conservative I mostly suspect that's just pandering. So, yeah. I don't know. I DO know what Hillary will do.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And that wasn't my question, I asked you is disavowing 11 times enough?

Keep in mind, you're insinuating that someone who hires countless minorities and operates businesses around the world is somehow a stark raving mad racist who wants to round up minorities and put them in databases.

Dodge the question, ask a different one, and answer that one instead. Standard political fare when the original question can't be addressed in a positive way. Either look like a goober who believes something ridiculous or admit the candidate's lack of integrity.

I don't think he's a white supremicist...unless you want him to be. If wearing a giant pickle hat played well, he'd have one on tomorrow. So, yes, eleven times is plenty. The need for eleven times is something else. Faulty earpiece...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ya know, if one is wanting to bring people together, I think one might use a tad bit stronger language, than "disavow," when being asked about white supremacists. Maybe something like "I reject their idiotic ideology, and would never want to be associated with their movement."
....but that's just me, being absolutely sure there's no misunderstanding.

Trump? He disavows.

 

[tbhausen]

We're going to end up with a Constitution-shredding liberal Supreme Court. Let that sink in after some of you've made your point. "Breaking" the Republican party might be a good idea in principle, but the timing to do so couldn't be worse.

 

[voidsherpa]

"Breaking" the Republican party might be a good idea in principle, but the timing to do so couldn't be worse.

Say that forever and get back to me.

 

[beclende]

We're going to end up with a Constitution-shredding liberal Supreme Court. Let that sink in after some of you've made your point. "Breaking" the Republican party might be a good idea in principle, but the timing to do so couldn't be worse.

So it will be the fault of those who stood on principle, got it. That was what the trump appeal was all about, crashing the establishment.

 

[jamil]

Ya know, if one is wanting to bring people together, I think one might use a tad bit stronger language, than "disavow," when being asked about white supremacists. Maybe something like "I reject their idiotic ideology, and would never want to be associated with their movement."
....but that's just me, being absolutely sure there's no misunderstanding.

Trump? He disavows.

I hate "disavow" politics. When you have to enumerate all the wacky ideas you disavow it is an indicator that the ones asking the questions are probably looking for a stumbling block to throw in your way. It's used as a political tool to influence the electorate. I don't like that.

That said, an honorable person shouldn't need to be asked to reject the endorsement of a dishonorable person.

 

[Tombs]

Ya know, if one is wanting to bring people together, I think one might use a tad bit stronger language, than "disavow," when being asked about white supremacists. Maybe something like "I reject their idiotic ideology, and would never want to be associated with their movement."
....but that's just me, being absolutely sure there's no misunderstanding.

Trump? He disavows.

If he used different language they'd say he refuses to disavow, so he uses their language so they can't say he didn't do it.

That's what I'd do on an issue that important to not leave any room for doubt.

Meanwhile hillary gets away with the grand dragon's endorsement, and bernie says he has too many supporters to be responsible for their actions. The media doesn't bother to hit either of them.

 

[voidsherpa]

That said, an honorable person shouldn't need to be asked to reject the endorsement of a dishonorable person.

Then again, when you do disavow them, libs will just say you "well you language wasn't strong enough!".

 

[Lowe0]

I assume you weren't old enough to be dealing with firearms from 1994 to 2004. It might as well of been a total ban.

Yes and no. I learned to shoot around 94-95, but I didn't own them. However, of the firearms in my safe, a whole whopping one of them (an AR-15) would be covered under the AWB.

I'm certainly not in favor of a ban (I think it'll be ineffective and difficult to enforce) but I'm not afraid that the government is coming for my guns, either.

 

[BugI02]

[video=youtube;g57LxM-GcSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g57LxM-GcSc[/video]