trump

[BugI02]

This election, the constitution loses.

With the landscape of the electoral college, a victory for Republicans is already an uphill climb. But Trump...he wears "Republican" like a costume, ready to toss aside as soon as the occasion no longer suits.

Clinton is an enemy to gun ownership, that is a fact...but she is a visible enemy, a known one. If elected, our "side" will have a potent symbol to remain vigilant.

But Trump is also an enemy to gun ownership...the kind of guy that will make assurances far and wide that our rights are secure even as he signs them away in the dark.

A vote for Trump doesn't save our republic...instead of a few years of predictable, deflectable lunacy, we get a wild card with just as many underground political ties and skeletons as the Clintons.

Yay.

Why is it that those who apparently cleave to the belief in an all-powerful presidency free to impose its will upon America (if Trump happens to win) apparently also believe in the effective checks and balances embodied in our congresspersons to keep bad things at bay (if Hitlery happens to win).

Is this not the very definition of cognitive dissonance

 

[T.Lex]

Moving on.

This person was an honest-to-goodness GOP VP nominee that some of us even tolerated at the time. Now this.

It's as though she, too, bought what he was selling.

Crap. That reminds me that I, at one time, did vote for a ticket that included someone I thought was singularly unfit for the job.

Maybe IndyDave and I aren't as far apart as I thought a few hours ago.

 

[printcraft]

I have you know, I take my time and savor each bite! Yep, I'd rather bury my guys in the yard.......

You look nothing like I have imagined you in my minds eye.

 

[BugI02]

I don't think so.

I think Trump is trying to appeal to a certain demographic, and is tone-deaf to how the parts of the message sound to other demographics. This tactic has worked very well for him in the Republican primary, but the General election is a different story.

View attachment 48262

 

[jamil]

Riiiight..... you'll be as easy to identify as Tyrone Power.

I am not that pretty. Really.

Me too...Except for the agnostic part and the Trump Derangement Syndrome, Jamil's my brother from another... (Just poking Jamil..I got to come in and defend Trump every couple of days to remind you and Kut that he's not really Hitler if a nice guy like me can back him...)

I'm not one of those guys who think Trump is the next Hitler. And, I don't blame you for supporting Trump. But brother, an intervention may be necessary.

Hold up. You mean "jamil" isn't your real name?

Mind. Blown.

Another lesser known secret. I rarely dress in black.

 

[T.Lex]

Why is it that those who apparently cleave to the belief in an all-powerful presidency free to impose its will upon America (if Trump happens to win) apparently also believe in the effective checks and balances embodied in our congresspersons to keep bad things at bay (if Hitlery happens to win).

Is this not the very definition of cognitive dissonance

Well, first, that's a straw man. The nature of the presidency won't change, only the nature of the person holding the position.

Second, I think there's a realization that Trump IS a more effective leader than HRC, generally. So, with a mistrust of his goals, the concern is that he'd be more effective at achieving whatever it is that he wants, to the detriment of the country, if necessary.

If I was the owner of a business and wanted to achieve a certain goal, I'd pick Trump to handle it WAY before HRC. But, I'd be careful not to give him too much autonomy and watch for any suspicious activity.

Carrying that to the job of POTUS, unfortunately, the opportunities for oversight are limited, and the opportunities to fire him are even more difficult to achieve.

 

[BugI02]

I think the point he is making is that some people are in the racists in the sense of harboring animus based on genetic dissimilarity in and of itself, as opposed to people who are willing to call it as they see it. Case in point, members of all but one demographic routinely make every issue this side of bad weather about race and the remaining one demographic is expected to either make believe that there is no distinction or else have a guilt complex over things that the majority of them aren't old enough to remember much less have done. One might ask some of these people (Jesse, Al, Barrack, yes, I am looking at you clowns) if they really want to be equal, and it seems pretty obvious that an equal race-irrelevant society is most definitely NOT their goal, and there is no shortage of people who are philosophically not racist who get sick and tired of it.

I'll just leave this here The bullies of Black Lives Matter - The Globe and Mail

It was said Trump's tweet was insensitive. You think BLM will be called on this? Survey sez nyet

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'll just leave this here The bullies of Black Lives Matter - The Globe and Mail

It was said Trump's tweet was insensitive. You think BLM will be called on this? Survey sez nyet

We've annexed Canadia? Why wasn't I informed aboot this ' eh? Or is the Toronto, Kentucky?

 

[jamil]

Why is it that those who apparently cleave to the belief in an all-powerful presidency free to impose its will upon America (if Trump happens to win) apparently also believe in the effective checks and balances embodied in our congresspersons to keep bad things at bay (if Hitlery happens to win).

Is this not the very definition of cognitive dissonance

Trump really isn't doing anything to help the candidates down ticket. He doesn't do much fundraising, which isn't just for his campaign but also to help fund other Republicans.

So, when Hillary wins, do you think Republicans can hold their majorities? And if they do hold the majority, Republicans were feckless against Obama. How would they be any different with Hillary? And if Trump wins, how would it be any different for him? Obama has shown future presidents how to render congress impotent. Not to say I believe Trump will be tyrannical (although, who really knows), but if he were, who would stop him?

 

[T.Lex]

We've annexed Canadia? Why wasn't I informed aboot this ' eh?

You have GOT to be on your phone or broke your fingers with fireworks over the weekend. Your typos are busting me up today! LMAO

 

[Kutnupe14]

You have GOT to be on your phone or broke your fingers with fireworks over the weekend. Your typos are busting me up today! LMAO

You mean it's not called Canadia? I think you are the one spelling it wrong 'eh?

 

[JettaKnight]

Why is it that those who apparently cleave to the belief in an all-powerful presidency free to impose its will upon America (if Trump happens to win) apparently also believe in the effective checks and balances embodied in our congresspersons to keep bad things at bay (if Hitlery happens to win).

Is this not the very definition of cognitive dissonance

Not quite.

The Republicans default is to oppose a Democratic President. However, is not so easy for a Republican Congress to oppose a Republican President.

 

[T.Lex]

You mean it's not called Canadia? I think you are the one spelling it wrong 'eh?

Take off, hoser.

Freakin' rednecks don't know how to spell other countries' names.

 

[BugI02]

When it actually looks like Trump is on our team, then your position will carry weight with me.

Have you then forgotten "Believe in America (but invest in the Caymans)" as I have obviously forgotten all the wonderful pro-2A things Mitt put such a high priority upon (as just one example)

To quote my man Chip, "Ideology in the primary, Party in the general"

 

[T.Lex]

Have you then forgotten "Believe in America (but invest in the Caymans)" as I have obviously forgotten all the wonderful pro-2A things Mitt put such a high priority upon (as just one example)

To quote my man Chip, "Ideology in the primary, Party in the general"

Well, as I recall, Mitt didn't win, so we don't know what 2A things he would've done. Now, we're still not sure what Trump will do on the 2A.

But, as to ideology, my counterpoint is that the Republican Party - through its nominee-designate - does not even reflect my ideology. In past nose-holding exercises, at least the nominee appeared to hold the same ideals.

This is not the Republican Party I joined, at the national level.

 

[BugI02]

Abortion == freedom
Marriage equality == freedom
Drug legalization == freedom
RKBA == freedom

Now, I've been accused by INGO of being a statist because I believe some of the lines drawn by .gov in the above topics are already pretty good. But, generally, there is a commonality among them.

I would prefer to see the order of precedence ... juggled, to say the least

 

[BugI02]

Overruled. I if you have to modify > 50% of the post, it's not a fix. It's a rewrite.

View attachment 48271







Except for me the hands would be a little different (as would the color of the belt)


View attachment 48270

 

[indiucky]

So why is Kut back to burying bodies in his backyard????? Did something happen with his hog pen???

 

[BugI02]

This is what gets under my skin. When Hillary wins in November all these Trumpers are going to point fingers at Republicans and say, "it's your fault!", instead of acknowledging that they picked this loser in the primaries and hamstrung the GOP.

Much as a soldier, wounded by friendly fire, might well apportion some blame to the individual(s) that shot him

 

[BugI02]

Overruled. I if you have to modify > 50% of the post, it's not a fix. It's a rewrite.

On second thought

Eight words out of 16

33 letters out of 72

neither is >50%

Denied