# HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!



## tinydancer

OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.

Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!



First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online

*First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*

*Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
*Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
*No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
*Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


----------



## Zander

He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!! 

So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!


----------



## DarkFury

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


*And the PEOPLE rose and said.....
*


----------



## DarkFury

*Democrats better get ready! Thats not the only poll!



*


----------



## Vigilante

Mr. Trump....always PISSING on the RINO ELITE!!!!!!...And NEVER Politically Correct!


----------



## NYcarbineer

It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,

because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.


----------



## aris2chat

??????????????

and we let them vote?

He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.

He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.

He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.


----------



## TheOldSchool

God damn right!  Trump is the way!  Watch out Bush and Cruz!  Donald has you in his sights!


----------



## Vigilante

NYcarbineer said:


> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.



As usual, making a JACKASS of himself with another "SWISH and a MISS" when trying to TOUCH, President Trump! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance


----------



## whitehall

You almost gotta laugh. Fox has been attacking Trump since Thursday and they even got the Newt man out of retirement (he looks good, gained a little weight) to add to the rant against Trump. Why do people still like him? We know democrats still live in the dark ages when Cronkite was king of the media but why didn't republicans ever understand the information revolution? Is it possible that the the people who are interested in politics might be just as smart but less biased than what passes for political pundits these days?


----------



## amrchaos




----------



## NYcarbineer

Vigilante said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, making a JACKASS of himself with another "SWISH and a MISS" when trying to TOUCH, President Trump! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
Click to expand...


Would you like to bet 10,000 that Trump will win the presidency?  I'll put the money up with a neutral party.  Will you?


----------



## TheOldSchool

whitehall said:


> You almost gotta laugh. Fox has been attacking Trump since Thursday and the Newt man was on Fox tonite ranting against Trump. Why do people like him? Because people are smarter than the pundits.


Damn right they are!  Go Trump!


----------



## amrchaos

NYcarbineer said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, making a JACKASS of himself with another "SWISH and a MISS" when trying to TOUCH, President Trump! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like to bet 10,000 that Trump will win the presidency?  I'll put the money up with a neutral party.  Will you?
Click to expand...



Go to Vegas


----------



## DarkFury

TheOldSchool said:


> God damn right!  Trump is the way!  Watch out Bush and Cruz!  Donald has you in his sights!


*You keep posting like that and one day, not to soon mind you but one day...somebody MIGHT like you.*


----------



## tinydancer

You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.

Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.

Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.

Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.

Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S. 

You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.


----------



## Rocko

Great news. Enough with career politicians. Let's finally give an achiever a chance.


----------



## Truman123

whitehall said:


> You almost gotta laugh. Fox has been attacking Trump since Thursday and the Newt man was on Fox tonite ranting against Trump. Why do people like him? Because people are smarter than the pundits.



Oh, ok.


----------



## Slyhunter

Read his book.
Amazon.com trump get tough Books
Trump for president.


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## eagle1462010

I'm enjoying the establishment getting rocked..............I'm loving it.......
Then they send in the media and they get SMACKED.............

Reality T.V. here we go...........LOL............

They deserve getting TRUMPED.


----------



## OKTexas

Zander said:


> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!



He's definitely going to make the others step up their game, it is entertaining.


----------



## NYcarbineer

tinydancer said:


> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.



We're in the 7th year of a presidency that the RWnuts like you thought was impossible,

because of your delusions about the US being a center/right country.


----------



## Vigilante

NYcarbineer said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, making a JACKASS of himself with another "SWISH and a MISS" when trying to TOUCH, President Trump! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like to bet 10,000 that Trump will win the presidency?  I'll put the money up with a neutral party.  Will you?
Click to expand...


What kind of ODDS are you giving me?


----------



## nat4900

Please help me understand this:

All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......

However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.

So, who really is the RINO??


----------



## TheOldSchool

NYcarbineer said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, making a JACKASS of himself with another "SWISH and a MISS" when trying to TOUCH, President Trump! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like to bet 10,000 that Trump will win the presidency?  I'll put the money up with a neutral party.  Will you?
Click to expand...


Get with the program!  Trump knows what's best for America!


DarkFury said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn right!  Trump is the way!  Watch out Bush and Cruz!  Donald has you in his sights!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You keep posting like that and one day, not to soon mind you but one day...somebody MIGHT like you.*
Click to expand...

You think I'm posting because I want you socialists to "like" me?  Get a clue foo, and help the last true America DONALD TRUMP win the Presidency!!!


----------



## TheOldSchool

nat4900 said:


> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??


Seems to me like instead of asking who's the RINO, you should be asking who's the PUSSY!  And then LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??


We are a very long way off from the real deal.

I'm loving the fact that the establishment, aka Status Quo is currently getting hammered............and I'm enjoying it even more when the Media attacks him...........He hits back and his ratings go up..........and one asking the questions gets attacked........

This is hilarious..............


----------



## nat4900

TheOldSchool said:


> Seems to me like instead of asking who's the RINO, you should be asking who's the PUSSY! And then LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!



You could have stated instead "I have no fucking clue how to answer your question" and you could have saved yourself from being exposed as an ignorant  clown......But do go on........


----------



## TheOldSchool

nat4900 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me like instead of asking who's the RINO, you should be asking who's the PUSSY! And then LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could have stated instead "I have no fucking clue how to answer your question" and you could have saved yourself from being exposed as an ignorant  clown......But do go on........
Click to expand...

Vote for Trump!!!!


----------



## nat4900

GO DONALD GO !!!!! (especially as a 3rd party candidate)


----------



## aris2chat

SassyIrishLass said:


> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance



we all know the problems but trump does not have real solutions that can pass congress or the courts.

Create jobs?  He keeps firing those who work for him.  

No increase in national income not money to pay for shipping imigrant in or out.  No money to create higher paying jobs that people can actually live on.  He does not budget money, he throws money at problems and makes them shinier and more austentatious and gaudy

PR is not a solution.  He knows PR, not actually working and solving social and government problems.  He can't out bluster Putin and ayatollah to bring them to heal.

He is a show man, not a politician


----------



## Zander

nat4900 said:


> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??



Health care - Trump is not for single payer. He was back in 1999 and cited the success of Scotland and some Nordic countries, but after the Obamacare fiasco he doesn't believe it is a workable plan for our country- says "that ship has sailed".  He prefers an open health insurance market that competes across state lines. - that is a conservative position.

Abortion - He is not pro-choice- He is pro-life,. He says he "evolved" on that issue.  

2nd amendment - He says he is not anti-gun. But he supported an assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background checks back in 2000. He says he no longer does.Personally - I am not too worried about this issue. I believe that if he is elected Trump will focus on the economy and trade. 

he's not a "check off the box" conservative, but he's conservative enough for me.


----------



## amrchaos

tinydancer said:


> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.




Democrats do have movers and shakers!




But, they are kind of wierd!​


----------



## aris2chat

Zander said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care - Trump is not for single payer. He was back in 1999 and cited the success of Scotland and some Nordic countries, but after the Obamacare fiasco he doesn't believe it is a workable plan for our country- says "that ship has sailed".  He prefers an open health insurance market that competes across state lines. - that is a conservative position.
> 
> Abortion - He is not pro-choice- He is pro-life,. He says he "evolved" on that issue.
> 
> 2nd amendment - He says he is not anti-gun. But he supported an assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background checks back in 2000. He says he no longer does.Personally - I am not too worried about this issue. I believe that if he is elected Trump will focus on the economy and trade.
> 
> he's not a "check off the box" conservative, but he's conservative enough for me.
Click to expand...


not long ago he was pro choice.  Now he is selling himself for republican votes

if he run independant, he might shift platforms again

PR just PR


----------



## The Irish Ram

NYcarbineer said:


> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.




I just don't believe his business acumen would allow him to blow millions and millions and millions on a pretense.   Do you think he'll drop out at 45 % or 60 %?
This is our country giving our politicians the finger.  And the checkbook and pen to an American businessman, who is rooting for America instead of the globe.


----------



## pismoe

nat4900 said:


> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   HEARD that he was for those things but also HEARD that he has evolved and changed his mind NAT .  No matter though , I'd rather have a Trump that 'may' be good on immigration and a few other things then a 'rino' like bush , christy , roobio .  No matter how it goes , it looks like Trump is hurting the 'gop' brand and I like that Nat .


----------



## paulitician

He's showing the lame milquetoast Neocons who's boss. How can you not like him? Can't wait for future debates. Haven't felt that way since Ron Paul. Go get em Trump!!


----------



## Vikrant

Donald Trump is a serious contender. He has good chance of winning the presidential election if he can invest some money in getting a better haircut.


----------



## aris2chat

The Irish Ram said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't believe his business acumen would allow him to blow millions and millions and millions on a pretense.   Do you think he'll drop out at 45 % or 60 %?
> This is our country giving our politicians the finger.  And the checkbook and pen to an American businessman, who is rooting for America instead of the globe.
Click to expand...



and throwing away an election on a protest is not a solution, just more problems


----------



## skye

Vikrant said:


> Donald Trump is a serious contender. He has good chance of winning the presidential election if he can invest some money in getting a better haircut.




But he loves his haircut and style LOL

he is different I guess

let him be  what he wants!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

TheOldSchool said:


> God damn right!  Trump is the way!  Watch out Bush and Cruz!  Donald has you in his sights!



^ Sick Fuck


----------



## pismoe

here you go NAT , Donald Trump on the issues .  You mention a few of them Nat .  ---   Donald Trump on the Issues  ---  so , hey , he seems ok on Guns and abortion but I just did a quick glance at his stance .   Check it out Nat !!


----------



## Katzndogz

His favorables are up too.  

This is going to be a rollicking election.

As HL Mencken said..

There are times when you just want to spit on your hands,  hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.

Trump is the black flag.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when *the Trump pretend candidacy* disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.



I agree, I'm not convinced that he really wants this job.  He's a narcissistic attention seeker who becomes petulant when people ask him questions he doesn't like.   He reminds me of obama in this respect.


----------



## pismoe

aris2chat said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't believe his business acumen would allow him to blow millions and millions and millions on a pretense.   Do you think he'll drop out at 45 % or 60 %?
> This is our country giving our politicians the finger.  And the checkbook and pen to an American businessman, who is rooting for America instead of the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and throwing away an election on a protest is not a solution, just more problems
Click to expand...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  so , whats the solution ,  vote for rinos 'yeb' , Christy or roobio .   Might as well vote for Hilary or Bernie if there is no Cruz or Trump  Aris .


----------



## aris2chat

skye said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a serious contender. He has good chance of winning the presidential election if he can invest some money in getting a better haircut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he loves his haircut and style LOL
> 
> he is different I guess
> 
> let him be  what he wants!
Click to expand...


in trump towers, not the nations whitehouse


----------



## pismoe

maybe ZBoing , maybe .   Course its a sure thing that the rinos are all rinos with probable exception of Ted Cruz and Carson .


----------



## aris2chat

pismoe said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't believe his business acumen would allow him to blow millions and millions and millions on a pretense.   Do you think he'll drop out at 45 % or 60 %?
> This is our country giving our politicians the finger.  And the checkbook and pen to an American businessman, who is rooting for America instead of the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and throwing away an election on a protest is not a solution, just more problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so , whats the solution ,  vote for rinos 'yeb' , Christy or roobio .   Might as well vote for Hilary or Bernie if there is no Cruz or Trump  Aris .
Click to expand...


weigh the candidates and pick the best, not the loudest stunt man

get involved in issues and write to washington, a lot

start your own grass roots group and get the issues heard.  Bring your own solutions t the table, not exoect everyone else with a mic to have all the correct answers.


----------



## skye

aris2chat said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a serious contender. He has good chance of winning the presidential election if he can invest some money in getting a better haircut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he loves his haircut and style LOL
> 
> he is different I guess
> 
> let him be  what he wants!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in trump towers, not the nations whitehouse
Click to expand...


well...the Whitehouse already has been painted rainbow.....

so

a hairstyle doesn't make much of a difference now  huh?


----------



## Vikrant

Major democrats voted in favor of Iraq war which became a major fiasco for the U.S. as we know now. Donald Trump on the other hand was always opposed to it. Time proved that he was right.


----------



## SwimExpert

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*



The only RINO is the Democrat who is trolling the GOP primary by pretending to run as President as a Republican.  That would be Donald Trump.


----------



## pismoe

aris2chat said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't believe his business acumen would allow him to blow millions and millions and millions on a pretense.   Do you think he'll drop out at 45 % or 60 %?
> This is our country giving our politicians the finger.  And the checkbook and pen to an American businessman, who is rooting for America instead of the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and throwing away an election on a protest is not a solution, just more problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so , whats the solution ,  vote for rinos 'yeb' , Christy or roobio .   Might as well vote for Hilary or Bernie if there is no Cruz or Trump  Aris .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> weigh the candidates and pick the best, not the loudest stunt man
> 
> get involved in issues and write to washington, a lot
> 
> start your own grass roots group and get the issues heard.  Bring your own solutions t the table, not exoect everyone else with a mic to have all the correct answers.
Click to expand...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             hey Aris , yeah , thanks .  Like I said earlier , Trump as well as Cruz are good people in my opinion but they are all that Consevatives have at the moment .  I support both of them , plus maybe Carson !!


----------



## pismoe

pretty good deal ehh Swim Expert ??


----------



## SwimExpert

Zander said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care - Trump is not for single payer. He was back in 1999 and cited the success of Scotland and some Nordic countries, but after the Obamacare fiasco he doesn't believe it is a workable plan for our country- says "that ship has sailed".  He prefers an open health insurance market that competes across state lines. - that is a conservative position.
> 
> Abortion - He is not pro-choice- He is pro-life,. He says he "evolved" on that issue.
> 
> 2nd amendment - He says he is not anti-gun. But he supported an assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background checks back in 2000. He says he no longer does.Personally - I am not too worried about this issue. I believe that if he is elected Trump will focus on the economy and trade.
> 
> he's not a "check off the box" conservative, but he's conservative enough for me.
Click to expand...


In other words he was for it before he was against it.


----------



## Vikrant

...

“The fact is that she asked me a very inappropriate question. She should really be apologizing to me if you want to know the truth,” Trump said Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” continuing a dayslong dust-up that began after last Thursday’s debate.

...

Donald Trump Megyn Kelly should apologize TO ME - NY Daily News


----------



## pismoe

so . what do you think of Trump and his stand on the issues Nat ??   ---  Donald Trump on the Issues  ---  here they are again Nat !!    Just click the link and see if you can figure out why I and other Conservatives like Trump over the regular crew of 'rinos' .


----------



## Zander

SwimExpert said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care - Trump is not for single payer. He was back in 1999 and cited the success of Scotland and some Nordic countries, but after the Obamacare fiasco he doesn't believe it is a workable plan for our country- says "that ship has sailed".  He prefers an open health insurance market that competes across state lines. - that is a conservative position.
> 
> Abortion - He is not pro-choice- He is pro-life,. He says he "evolved" on that issue.
> 
> 2nd amendment - He says he is not anti-gun. But he supported an assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background checks back in 2000. He says he no longer does.Personally - I am not too worried about this issue. I believe that if he is elected Trump will focus on the economy and trade.
> 
> he's not a "check off the box" conservative, but he's conservative enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words he was for it before he was against it.
Click to expand...


Meh...I've changed my mind on a few issues over the years.


----------



## pismoe

check out my link SwimExpert , its Donald on the issues and is in post number 58 .  Then when you take Donalds words on immigration , guns , war seriously Trump stands head and shoulders above the 'rinos' .  Check out the link SwimExpert .


----------



## Vikrant

Meghan McCain delivers an ultimate insult to Donald Trump. She calls him a millionaire


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Clinton all go to prove that politicians suck, all of them, we don't fucking need them, we're sick of listening to them


----------



## deltex1

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


Can't wait for trump to be Pres and stick his dick into the ass of a blow up Mohammed doll...that'll be a hoot....


----------



## SwimExpert

Zander said:


> Meh...I've changed my mind on a few issues over the years.



We all do.  But Trump has changed his mind on *every last issue under the sun*, including which wife to wear to dinner on Sundays.  We're supposed to believe after a lifetime of being a Democrat and pouring money into supporting liberal causes, we're supposed to believe that Trump had some kind of magical overnight conversion?  There are only two possible explanations:  

1 - Trump is trolling in order to sabotage the GOP, much like he did in 2008
2 - The real Donald Trump is dead and has been replaced by an alien clone, seeking out the truth on Purity Control experimentation before colonization moves forward.


----------



## dblack

Trump is exactly what Republicans deserve.


----------



## Boss

aris2chat said:


> we all know the problems but trump does not have real solutions that can pass congress or the courts.
> 
> Create jobs?  He keeps firing those who work for him.
> 
> No increase in national income not money to pay for shipping imigrant in or out.  No money to create higher paying jobs that people can actually live on.  He does not budget money, he throws money at problems and makes them shinier and more austentatious and gaudy
> 
> PR is not a solution.  He knows PR, not actually working and solving social and government problems.  He can't out bluster Putin and ayatollah to bring them to heal.
> 
> He is a show man, not a politician



If you go read his book, you will find that he lays out his plan for the economy, foreign and domestic policy, his ideas for improving things, etc.  _Making America Great Again..._ I'm sure it's available at Amazon. So... the man has written and published a whole book on his plans and ideas which most of you haven't read and won't bother reading. 

Now you say "solutions that can't pass Congress" but the President doesn't write legislation and send it to Congress... so what the hell do you mean? He will direct his party leaders in Congress and the ones who don't want to be stuck doing 'busywork' the rest of their terms will have to get on board and get the job done... Trump is not the kind of boss who puts up with lollygagging. 

As we've seen with Obama... MANY things can be changed by Executive Order... and I don't want to hear one single solitary peep from any lefty about it when it happens... Your guy set the precedent and now you'll live by it.


----------



## SwimExpert

pismoe said:


> check out my link SwimExpert , its Donald on the issues and is in post number 58 .  Then when you take Donalds words on immigration , guns , war seriously Trump stands head and shoulders above the 'rinos' .  Check out the link SwimExpert .



I would, except nothing that comes out of his mouth has any meaning to me.  I scarcely believe him when he says his name.


----------



## deltex1

dblack said:


> Trump is exactly what Republicans deserve.


I wouldn't wish PIAPS on my worst enemy.


----------



## Vikrant

People are talking about Hillary and they are talking about Bernie but what about Joe? Has he given up already? 

---

Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump It s All Entertainment - NBC News


----------



## pismoe

and looks like Trump is putting together his Administration Nat , SwimExpert and others that may be interested .  ---  Icahn Sure Trump let s do this  ---


----------



## G.T.

tinydancer said:


> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.


U r canadian


Shhh


----------



## Boss

SwimExpert said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh...I've changed my mind on a few issues over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all do.  But Trump has changed his mind on *every last issue under the sun*, including which wife to wear to dinner on Sundays.  We're supposed to believe after a lifetime of being a Democrat and pouring money into supporting liberal causes, we're supposed to believe that Trump had some kind of magical overnight conversion?  There are only two possible explanations:
> 
> 1 - Trump is trolling in order to sabotage the GOP, much like he did in 2008
> 2 - The real Donald Trump is dead and has been replaced by an alien clone, seeking out the truth on Purity Control experimentation before colonization moves forward.
Click to expand...


Yes... People change their minds sometimes. I liked his recalling how he changed his mind on abortion... it touched my heart. I can relate to what he said because I've had similar experiences... I know some outstanding kids who could have very easily been aborted. 

What "liberal causes" has he poured money into, Megyn Kelly? You're FAILING to give context! Haven't you learned this will cause blood to shoot out or your eyes... or wherever?


----------



## Zander

SwimExpert said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh...I've changed my mind on a few issues over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all do.  But Trump has changed his mind on *every last issue under the sun*, including which wife to wear to dinner on Sundays.  We're supposed to believe after a lifetime of being a Democrat and pouring money into supporting liberal causes, we're supposed to believe that Trump had some kind of magical overnight conversion?  There are only two possible explanations:
> 
> 1 - Trump is trolling in order to sabotage the GOP, much like he did in 2008
> 2 - The real Donald Trump is dead and has been replaced by an alien clone, seeking out the truth on Purity Control experimentation before colonization moves forward.
Click to expand...


He hasn't poured money into liberal causes- 
Since 1989, he’s contributed over $350,000 more to Republicans running for federal and state offices, campaign finance records show. 

Data from the Federal Election Commission and state elections offices provided by the two websites show that Trump has given $584,850 to Democrats and $961,140 to the GOP over the last 26 years.

The difference in donations is almost entirely captured in Trump’s recent giving. Since 2012, Trump has donated $463,450 to Republicans and just $3,500 to Democrats (California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Assemblyman Michael Benedetto).

We’ve included those numbers below, with links to records of the individual contributions.

He has not changed his mind on every issue. He has evolved on Abortion and possibly gun control. Feel free to prove me wrong though.


----------



## pismoe

and this Carl Ichan is a big money man and most likely Ted Cruz for legalities will be in there as well as Ben Carson for Medical and I also heard that Trey Gowdy would be part of a Trump administration .  Maybe get some old time Generals back and maybe the killers of 'osama' to head or consult with special military forces .


----------



## bodecea

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


Fantastic!


----------



## pismoe

hey SwimExpert , well , just keep interested in Donald Trump and keep watching him with interest .   Maybe you will be converted into a supporter .


----------



## Vikrant

Donald Trump will formulate his policies based on what is good for America. This is not going to sit well with certain lobbies in DC. Wait and see, once Trump wins the primary, all sorts of propaganda will be hurled at him.


----------



## dblack

Bread (Sanders) and cicuses (Trump)


----------



## Vigilante

*Warren Buffett: Trump won't be a flash in the pan *

CNBC ^ | Aug 10 2015 | CNBC
Warren Buffett said Monday that Donald Trump has a solid base of support in the race for the Republican presidential nomination that seems unshakable by the real estate mogul's over-the-top comments. Trump will have a block of delegates when the convention arrives, but with the huge field of GOP candidates, it's possible no one will have a majority, Buffett told CNBC's "Squawk Box" in a wide-ranging interview.


----------



## dblack

It's such a shame Andy Kaufman died.


----------



## Vikrant

Megyn Kelly is not even qualified to make any comment on Donald Trump. She is way over her head on this.


----------



## nat4900

pismoe said:


> No matter how it goes , it looks like *Trump is hurting the 'gop' brand and I like that Nat*



Perhaps even as much as I like it? LOL


----------



## pismoe

whad you do , just ignore my links stating Trumps stand on the issues that you mentioned .  I posted his stand on the issues like abortion , guns , war , mexico wall , illegals just for you Nat .


----------



## nat4900

Zander said:


> He says he "*evolved*" on that issue.




For all you conservatives who do not believe in evolution, please note that Trump has "evolved".....


----------



## dblack

Trump is no-nonsense, man-of-action. The kind of leader America deserves.


----------



## Muhammed

Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.


----------



## dblack

Muhammed said:


> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.


Scared silly!


----------



## nat4900

Muhammed said:


> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.



You could not be MORE wrong on this.......NOTHING, absolutely nothing cheers left wingers more than a possible Trump nomination......nothing !!!


----------



## Muhammed

dblack said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Scared silly!
Click to expand...

Scared shitless.


----------



## Vikrant

Trump could very well pull it off. People seem to be responding to his message. I think his anti-immigrant speeches have won him some supporters.


----------



## pismoe

agreed , I like how Nat and others are just so happy with Hilary .  If they were smart they'd get rid of 'hil' and back Bernie .   Heck , Bernie is a basement dwelling , skateboard riding hiphoppers dream !!


----------



## nat4900

Vikrant said:


> Trump could very well pull it off. People seem to be responding to his message. I think his anti-immigrant speeches have won him some supporters.




Honestly, Trump symbolizes the collective "middle finger" that folks....from both sides of the aisle.....would like to give the do-nothing, self-serving political climate in D.C.

That said, the test will come for Trump's viability when the roster of contestants within the GOP is down to 3 or 4.


----------



## Muhammed

nat4900 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could not be MORE wrong on this.......NOTHING, absolutely nothing cheers left wingers more than a possible Trump nomination......nothing !!!
Click to expand...



Your all-caps belie your fear of Trump.


----------



## nat4900

pismoe said:


> agreed , I like how Nat and others are just so happy with Hilary . If they were smart they'd get rid of 'hil' and back Bernie . Heck , Bernie is a basement dwelling , skateboard riding hiphoppers dream !!



You're entitled to an opinion but not to your own set of facts...I, for one, very much dislike Hillary and within my like-minded (politically) friends, NOT ONE person likes the Clinton arrogance........Please know that.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## nat4900

Muhammed said:


> Your* all-caps* belie your fear of Trump



When was your last visit to an optometrist?


----------



## Vikrant

nat4900 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump could very well pull it off. People seem to be responding to his message. I think his anti-immigrant speeches have won him some supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, Trump symbolizes the collective "middle finger" that folks....from both sides of the aisle.....would like to give the do-nothing, self-serving political climate in D.C.
> 
> That said, the test will come for Trump's viability when the roster of contestants within the GOP is down to 3 or 4.
Click to expand...


This election is going to be very interesting. Donald Trump brings the surprise element from the Republican side. I think Joe Biden will pull off last minute surprise from the Democratic side. As a vice president, I think he should be the toughest contender from the Democratic party.


----------



## SwimExpert

Zander said:


> Since 1989, he’s contributed over $350,000 more to Republicans running for federal and state offices, campaign finance records show.



Yes, but as you also point out....



> Since 2012, Trump has donated $463,450 to Republicans and just $3,500 to Democrats



Are we really to believe that some kind of switch was flipped over night and that's just normal every day stuff?  I haven't see such a sudden and dramatic change in someone since Goku went Super Saiyan 3.


----------



## hortysir




----------



## Muhammed

Vikrant said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump could very well pull it off. People seem to be responding to his message. I think his anti-immigrant speeches have won him some supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, Trump symbolizes the collective "middle finger" that folks....from both sides of the aisle.....would like to give the do-nothing, self-serving political climate in D.C.
> 
> That said, the test will come for Trump's viability when the roster of contestants within the GOP is down to 3 or 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This election is going to be very interesting. Donald Trump brings the surprise element from the Republican side. I think Joe Biden will pull off last minute surprise from the Democratic side. As a vice president, I think he should be the toughest contender from the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

Biden creeps people out like that wide-eyed, Sandusky smiled neighbor down the street who always seems eager to put his paws on your pre-teen daughters. 

When your kids go out selling girl scout cookies or trick-or-treating door-to-door you always remind them to skip that house.


----------



## Mustang

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*



A couple of years ago I read a book by Chris Hedges. In it, at one point he made a declarative statement which said that humans were essentially irrational beings. It really jumped out at me, in part, because over the years I had plenty of experiences with people doing things that seemed completely irrational to me.

Recently, the Greek people took to the streets to celebrate the defeat of a compromise that would have prevented Greece from going over a financial cliff. How nuts are people collectively when they're celebrating the defeat of something that would have essentially saved them from ruination?

But it's not as if this is an isolated incident. Whether it's individuals or groups, people have a tendency to view the world irrationally.

So here we are: Donald Trump is turning the early stages of the GOP nomination process into a mockery of anything serious by making it look like a circus sideshow. He vilifies everyone and behaves like a petulant and truculent child, and conservatives are singing his praises.

In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.


----------



## SwimExpert

Mustang said:


> In it, at one point he made a declarative statement which said that humans were essentially irrational beings.



You needed a book to tell you that?  But really, even the book didn't get it quite right.  People are _stupid_.  Being irrational is just a side effect.


----------



## nat4900

Muhammed said:


> Biden creeps people out like that wide-eyed, Sandusky smiled neighbor down the street who always seems eager to put his paws on your pre-teen daughters.
> 
> When your kids go out selling girl scout cookies or trick-or-treating door-to-door you always remind them to skip that house.



Uncalled for and inane.......Be a critic of Biden's policies, but these baseless accusations of a decent guy makes you look real petty.


----------



## hortysir

Vikrant said:


> Megyn Kelly is not even qualified to make any comment on Donald Trump. She is way over her head on this.



After high school, she pursued an undergraduate degree in political science at Syracuse University, and earned a J.D. from Albany Law School in 1995.



And where did you study law and political Science?


----------



## ninja007

NYcarbineer said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're in the 7th year of a presidency that the RWnuts like you thought was impossible,
> 
> because of your delusions about the US being a center/right country.
Click to expand...

all polls/studies show its a right center country. Not only that your own logic dismisses your premise. Recently we took over the house/congress. GWB just had 8 years.


----------



## nat4900

ninja007 said:


> Recently we took over the house/congress. GWB just had 8 years.



I know that you're smart and unbiased enough to also admit this:

1. Presidential election cycles bring on much different results than mid-term ones.....and,
2, Give the less than stellar performance of a GOP congress results may surprise you in 2016 (how many senate seats does the RNC have to defend?)


----------



## Boss

Mustang said:


> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.



Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.


----------



## ninja007

the math is simple. In the US there are more takers than givers, so of course the dems won the last two elections. Promise this, promise that. No responsibility= votes from the dead beats. Of course there are dead beats on the Conservative side; but not as many.


----------



## Jackson

DarkFury said:


> *Democrats better get ready! Thats not the only poll!
> 
> 
> 
> *


In talking with friends,Trump crossed the aisle and has the support of some Democrats! They plan on voting for him.


----------



## Jackson

nat4900 said:


> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??


We have to remember that the president does not make those changes, Congress does.  Unless your name is Barack.


----------



## Mustang

SwimExpert said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In it, at one point he made a declarative statement which said that humans were essentially irrational beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You needed a book to tell you that?  But really, even the book didn't get it quite right.  People are _stupid_.  Being irrational is just a side effect.
Click to expand...


The point that was striking was that Hedges was not writing about the fact that SOME people are irrational which everyone knows. He was talking about people in general which he essentially implied was true of ALL people, at least at one time or another.

Let's use the modern day example. Climate change is a good place to start. Regardless of how climate change ultimately plays out, it's an undeniable fact that greenhouse gas levels have been rising since the industrial age and can scientifically attributed to human activity which is burning more fossil fuel at the very same time that we're collectively mowing down more forests even as industrialization is picking up and the world population is soaring which translates to more people engaging in the very activities which is raising CO2 levels. Yet the deniers won't have any of it in much the same way that the Catholic church would not pay heed to the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Same shit, different century.


----------



## Jackson

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we all know the problems but trump does not have real solutions that can pass congress or the courts.
> 
> Create jobs?  He keeps firing those who work for him.
> 
> No increase in national income not money to pay for shipping imigrant in or out.  No money to create higher paying jobs that people can actually live on.  He does not budget money, he throws money at problems and makes them shinier and more austentatious and gaudy
> 
> PR is not a solution.  He knows PR, not actually working and solving social and government problems.  He can't out bluster Putin and ayatollah to bring them to heal.
> 
> He is a show man, not a politician
Click to expand...

He has created more jobs than any other business man, except say Bill Gates.  
Of course he budgets money in his businesses, and he doing fine in personal wealth.
What I like most is his ability to deal for the US if he gets elected.


----------



## Moonglow




----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
Click to expand...


No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals.






We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.

That's not how reality works.


----------



## ScienceRocks

IF he is still leading by this much by Nov 1st..Well, I'll start thinking that he could take it all the way.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals. We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.
> 
> That's not how reality works.
Click to expand...



41% of this country are moderates like me 

Conservatives are only around 30%!

Yet, they think they own this country and want to cut the shit out of our funding for infrastructure, science institutions and education. What a bunch of morooons!

Who ever that wins the primary is going to have to answer to us moderates.


----------



## Skylar

Moderates and liberals make up about 57% of the electorate. Conservatives 38%.

You don't have to be a math major to realize that 38% isn't 'most Americans'. In terms of size though, conservatives are the largest, moderates are second, liberals are third. Though liberals are gaining ground.


----------



## MarcATL

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


This is FANTASTIC news! 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Katzndogz

Vikrant said:


> ...
> 
> “The fact is that she asked me a very inappropriate question. She should really be apologizing to me if you want to know the truth,” Trump said Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” continuing a dayslong dust-up that began after last Thursday’s debate.
> 
> ...
> 
> Donald Trump Megyn Kelly should apologize TO ME - NY Daily News


She will eventually.   She will have to.


----------



## SwimExpert

Mustang said:


> The point that was striking was that Hedges was not writing about the fact that SOME people are irrational which everyone knows. He was talking about people in general which he essentially implied was true of ALL people, at least at one time or another.



The Tommy Lee Jones explanation.  Individuals are smart.  People are dumb and irrational.  Supposedly, in groups, pretty much all people revert to their basic herd instincts.  Personally, I would counter argue that in reality, it really is that _some_ people are stupid and irrational, but also that since they are the majority, they control.  Meanwhile, more reasonable minds will get drowned out and go unnoticed against the backdrop, creating the illusion of uniform irrationality.  There's also the phenomenon of the dissenting follower; just because someone goes along with what the majority are doing doesn't mean that they subscribe to the irrationality of the crowd, instead there may be many people who pragmatically conclude that inclusion in an irrational majority may be more advantageous, or less risky, than taking an alternate and more rational road in isolation.

In any event, I think that this is only tangentially related to the Trump phenomenon.  In another thread I recently described Trump as a flash-in-the-pan, and went on to describe that class of people as being leaders amongst lower intellectual classes.  Trump appeals directly to people's most base yearnings.  Much like a person might crave a candy bar, or a 15 year old boy might crave a hand job, Trump taps into a hunger that can be very powerful amongst a wide array of people at first, but that is ultimately shallow and tends to expire relatively quickly when indulged.  A candy bar will not cure a starving man, and a hand job will not satisfy the human need of companionship.  With time, the field of people who continue to be enamored with such a figure will necessarily narrow.


----------



## oreo

Yes, his supporters have figured out a way to vote 1000 times in the poll--LOL  Or maybe Trump bought his own poll?


----------



## David_42

This is hilarious.


----------



## Jackson

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> “The fact is that she asked me a very inappropriate question. She should really be apologizing to me if you want to know the truth,” Trump said Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” continuing a dayslong dust-up that began after last Thursday’s debate.
> 
> ...
> 
> Donald Trump Megyn Kelly should apologize TO ME - NY Daily News
> 
> 
> 
> She will eventually.   She will have to.
Click to expand...

I hope so.  I love the fact that Trump went to the enemy to be heard.  Eat that Ailes.


----------



## oreo

SassyIrishLass said:


> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance




He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.

 He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.

He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.


----------



## francoHFW

Good- might break up the Foxbot etc etc New BS GOP.


----------



## Jackson

oreo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up. He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
Click to expand...

That could be, Oreo. Do you have a link about Latinos not liking Trump?


----------



## Jackson

oreo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
Click to expand...

I take issue with the Latinos and immigrants.  I have legal immigrants provide services to me that came over here legally.  They are mad as hell.  They are waiting for their relatives to come...legally.  And all the people who live on the other side of our borders just run across.  It is a daily event.  They are ready to vote for anyone who can and actually will build that wall,  Then perhaps without the influx of illegals, their relatives can come over.  I understand their plight.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.
> 
> That's not how reality works.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Corky... you need to learn how to read graphs... or maybe learn double-digit numbers.... 38% is higher than 34% or 23%.


----------



## Boss

oreo said:


> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration. We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.



Latest polling shows he leads all GOP candidates for the Latino vote with 34%... beating both Cruz and Rubio, the two actual Latinos in the race. So apparently, they weren't TOO offended.


----------



## tinydancer

oreo said:


> Yes, his supporters have figured out a way to vote 1000 times in the poll--LOL  Or maybe Trump bought his own poll?



Hundreds of thousands of Trump fans didn't vote for him. That's ludicrous. 

Do you understand polling at all? The methodology is sound. And the poll was overseen by the Washington Post. Not a natural ally of Republicans.

"The Morning Consult, a polling and politics website, commissioned a poll of more than 2,000 voters including 746 self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, asking them after the debate to pick a GOP presidential nominee."

First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online

Trump s Lead Grows After Debate Controversy - Morning Consult


----------



## Boss

oreo said:


> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment.



He doesn't need more notoriety... everyone on the planet knows who Trump is. Entertainment? I'm sure Trump could find much less expensive and more fun ways to entertain himself, let's be real. 



> That's what Trump is about--entertainment. He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle. He's got the money to buy polling data too.



Oh shit! Well, you're in fucking trouble then since most morons look at poll numbers to decide what they think!  If Trump has bought off all the pollsters, you're in for a long tough year! You best be trying to figure out how to hang on to the moron votes in your party before they start believing in the polls Trump's bought! 



> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.



Yes, we ARE angry... And I doubt seriously he is going to get tired of _*WINNING*_ the presidency and drop out.... but I guess you have to WISH, right?


----------



## Skylar

Mustang said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In it, at one point he made a declarative statement which said that humans were essentially irrational beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You needed a book to tell you that?  But really, even the book didn't get it quite right.  People are _stupid_.  Being irrational is just a side effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point that was striking was that Hedges was not writing about the fact that SOME people are irrational which everyone knows. He was talking about people in general which he essentially implied was true of ALL people, at least at one time or another.
> 
> Let's use the modern day example. Climate change is a good place to start. Regardless of how climate change ultimately plays out, it's an undeniable fact that greenhouse gas levels have been rising since the industrial age and can scientifically attributed to human activity which is burning more fossil fuel at the very same time that we're collectively mowing down more forests even as industrialization is picking up and the world population is soaring which translates to more people engaging in the very activities which is raising CO2 levels. Yet the deniers won't have any of it in much the same way that the Catholic church would not pay heed to the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Same shit, different century.
Click to expand...



I see it a bit differently. People are rational. They're also hypocrites. So often what they say they want doesn't match their actions. But if you can glean their actual motivations and goals, very often their actions will be explicitly rational toward them. And wildly irrational to what they said they want.

Take....Trump. Those supporting him hate RINOs and want a true conservative. Yet Trump has expressed support for single payer medicine, what these same conservatives have dismissed as communism and fascism. Trump has expressed support for limited amnesty. Trump has been a registered democrat.

By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.
> 
> That's not how reality works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Corky... you need to learn how to read graphs... or maybe learn double-digit numbers.... 38% is higher than 34% or 23%.
Click to expand...


Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'? We've done this dance before, slick. You lost. And we'll do it again. The majority of Americans are not conservatives. They are self identified moderates and liberals. 57% to 38%.

You know this. You pretend it isn't so. And reality doesn't change just because you close your eyes.


----------



## Judicial review

Boss said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't need more notoriety... everyone on the planet knows who Trump is. Entertainment? I'm sure Trump could find much less expensive and more fun ways to entertain himself, let's be real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Trump is about--entertainment. He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle. He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit! Well, you're in fucking trouble then since most morons look at poll numbers to decide what they think!  If Trump has bought off all the pollsters, you're in for a long tough year! You best be trying to figure out how to hang on to the moron votes in your party before they start believing in the polls Trump's bought!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we ARE angry... And I doubt seriously he is going to get tired of _*WINNING*_ the presidency and drop out.... but I guess you have to WISH, right?
Click to expand...


You are putting your faith in a motion sensor bomb that if someone touches he will will self-detonate and blow up in seconds.  I wish you the best,but I'll enjoy the debris from a distance very much.


----------



## Vikrant

hortysir said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Megyn Kelly is not even qualified to make any comment on Donald Trump. She is way over her head on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After high school, she pursued an undergraduate degree in political science at Syracuse University, and earned a J.D. from Albany Law School in 1995.
> 
> 
> 
> And where did you study law and political Science?
Click to expand...


May be it is time she take some refresher courses


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.
> 
> That's not how reality works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Corky... you need to learn how to read graphs... or maybe learn double-digit numbers.... 38% is higher than 34% or 23%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'? We've done this dance before, slick. You lost. And we'll do it again. The majority of Americans are not conservatives. They are self identified moderates and liberals. 57% to 38%.
> 
> You know this. You pretend it isn't so. And reality doesn't change just because you close your eyes.
Click to expand...


*Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'?*

The one where 38 is greater than 34 and 23. 

Yeah, we've been through this before... you want to lay claim to all the moderates as if none of them are conservative. I didn't say "a majority" ...I said "most are conservative" and that is true. Liberals are not moderates and moderates are not liberals... you can't claim their group and they can't claim your group. MOST are Conservative, not moderate, not liberal. 
You lose.... you are a loser.


----------



## Mac1958

Skylar said:


> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.


Yeah, fascinating, I've been wondering about this, too.  The conservative base will reject a candidate who strays away from orthodoxy (I saw Fiorina being called a RINO yesterday), but the rules are clearly different for Trump and Trump alone.

I'd love to see some comments on that.  The priority appears to be attitude over issues.

.


----------



## Boss

Judicial review said:


> You are putting your faith in a motion sensor bomb that if someone touches he will will self-detonate and blow up in seconds. I wish you the best,but I'll enjoy the debris from a distance very much.



I'd rather have a motion sensor bomb than a tactical nuke "fundamentally transforming" us.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Zander said:


> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!



Put your hand up who wants to be ENTERTAINED!!!!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Boss said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't need more notoriety... everyone on the planet knows who Trump is. Entertainment? I'm sure Trump could find much less expensive and more fun ways to entertain himself, let's be real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Trump is about--entertainment. He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle. He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit! Well, you're in fucking trouble then since most morons look at poll numbers to decide what they think!  If Trump has bought off all the pollsters, you're in for a long tough year! You best be trying to figure out how to hang on to the moron votes in your party before they start believing in the polls Trump's bought!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we ARE angry... And I doubt seriously he is going to get tired of _*WINNING*_ the presidency and drop out.... but I guess you have to WISH, right?
Click to expand...


I could probably find about 200 hundred people within the next hour who DON'T know who Donald Trump is.


----------



## Claudette

SassyIrishLass said:


> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance



I agree. He's obviously saying what those polled want to hear. He's saying what he truly believes which is more than can be said for those mouth breathers in DC and those he's running against.

I don't know if he'll make it but it will be fun to watch. LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skylar said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In it, at one point he made a declarative statement which said that humans were essentially irrational beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You needed a book to tell you that?  But really, even the book didn't get it quite right.  People are _stupid_.  Being irrational is just a side effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point that was striking was that Hedges was not writing about the fact that SOME people are irrational which everyone knows. He was talking about people in general which he essentially implied was true of ALL people, at least at one time or another.
> 
> Let's use the modern day example. Climate change is a good place to start. Regardless of how climate change ultimately plays out, it's an undeniable fact that greenhouse gas levels have been rising since the industrial age and can scientifically attributed to human activity which is burning more fossil fuel at the very same time that we're collectively mowing down more forests even as industrialization is picking up and the world population is soaring which translates to more people engaging in the very activities which is raising CO2 levels. Yet the deniers won't have any of it in much the same way that the Catholic church would not pay heed to the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Same shit, different century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see it a bit differently. People are rational. They're also hypocrites. So often what they say they want doesn't match their actions. But if you can glean their actual motivations and goals, very often their actions will be explicitly rational toward them. And wildly irrational to what they said they want.
> 
> Take....Trump. Those supporting him hate RINOs and want a true conservative. Yet Trump has expressed support for single payer medicine, what these same conservatives have dismissed as communism and fascism. Trump has expressed support for limited amnesty. Trump has been a registered democrat.
> 
> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.
Click to expand...


They also like reality TV. 

American Idol is 10th most popular on Fox, Hell's Kitchen (more or less Trump but a Brit in a kitchen not on stage) is 14th. 

Hardly surprising that this new TV format "Politics Idol" or "Hell's politics" or "Trump nightmares" or whatever they'd repackage it as later on, is doing so well.


----------



## Boss

Mac1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fascinating, I've been wondering about this, too.  The conservative base will reject a candidate who strays away from orthodoxy (I saw Fiorina being called a RINO yesterday), but the rules are clearly different for Trump and Trump alone.
> 
> I'd love to see some comments on that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I think I can explain. First of all, Trump has addressed his changed positions and references Ronald Reagan's switching parties to illustrate how people change their minds over time. I think his supporters believe him when he explains his change of heart on abortion and other issues. It's as simple as that. 

Most of the people supporting Trump are not Republican loyalists. They are fed up with the Republicans AND the Democrats. They are especially fed up with the PC Liberal Left who, quite frankly, want to act like petulant 7th-graders, both when governing and campaigning. The pinheads who would rather rant all day about gay rights, a fucking flag, or "blood shooting" comments instead of having a meaningful dialogue on the problems facing our country. 

THEY ARE DONE! Got it? *DONE!*

In short... IF you are a partisan political hack... you got a BIG problem and his name is Trump!


----------



## Mac1958

Boss said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fascinating, I've been wondering about this, too.  The conservative base will reject a candidate who strays away from orthodoxy (I saw Fiorina being called a RINO yesterday), but the rules are clearly different for Trump and Trump alone.
> 
> I'd love to see some comments on that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I can explain. First of all, Trump has addressed his changed positions and references Ronald Reagan's switching parties to illustrate how people change their minds over time. I think his supporters believe him when he explains his change of heart on abortion and other issues. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Most of the people supporting Trump are not Republican loyalists. They are fed up with the Republicans AND the Democrats. They are especially fed up with the PC Liberal Left who, quite frankly, want to act like petulant 7th-graders, both when governing and campaigning. The pinheads who would rather rant all day about gay rights, a fucking flag, or "blood shooting" comments instead of having a meaningful dialogue on the problems facing our country.
> 
> THEY ARE DONE! Got it? *DONE!*
> 
> In short... IF you are a partisan political hack... you got a BIG problem and his name is Trump!
Click to expand...

So you're confident that his views now are consistently conservative?

Also, how do you feel conservatives would react if he came out with two or three views that are not?

.


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't need more notoriety... everyone on the planet knows who Trump is. Entertainment? I'm sure Trump could find much less expensive and more fun ways to entertain himself, let's be real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Trump is about--entertainment. He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle. He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit! Well, you're in fucking trouble then since most morons look at poll numbers to decide what they think!  If Trump has bought off all the pollsters, you're in for a long tough year! You best be trying to figure out how to hang on to the moron votes in your party before they start believing in the polls Trump's bought!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we ARE angry... And I doubt seriously he is going to get tired of _*WINNING*_ the presidency and drop out.... but I guess you have to WISH, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could probably find about 200 hundred people within the next hour who DON'T know who Donald Trump is.
Click to expand...


Go for it you Internet Warrior!


----------



## Claudette

Boss said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fascinating, I've been wondering about this, too.  The conservative base will reject a candidate who strays away from orthodoxy (I saw Fiorina being called a RINO yesterday), but the rules are clearly different for Trump and Trump alone.
> 
> I'd love to see some comments on that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I can explain. First of all, Trump has addressed his changed positions and references Ronald Reagan's switching parties to illustrate how people change their minds over time. I think his supporters believe him when he explains his change of heart on abortion and other issues. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Most of the people supporting Trump are not Republican loyalists. They are fed up with the Republicans AND the Democrats. They are especially fed up with the PC Liberal Left who, quite frankly, want to act like petulant 7th-graders, both when governing and campaigning. The pinheads who would rather rant all day about gay rights, a fucking flag, or "blood shooting" comments instead of having a meaningful dialogue on the problems facing our country.
> 
> THEY ARE DONE! Got it? *DONE!*
> 
> In short... IF you are a partisan political hack... you got a BIG problem and his name is Trump!
Click to expand...


I tend to agree.

Lots of people are sick of both parties. Me included.

Trump is a breath of fresh air.

He's a billionaire so he can't be bought and he says what he thinks without all that PC bullshit the rest of the mouth breathing politicians are always spouting.

Is he perfect?? Hell no. He's going to say some things that folks don't like but is he saying other things they will like?? You bet.

Will Trump get the nomination?? Don't know but its will be interesting to hang around and find out.


----------



## Boss

Mac1958 said:


> So you're confident that his views now are consistently conservative?
> Also, how do you feel conservatives would react if he came out with two or three views that are not?.



If you search my threads you will find many posts I've made about Conservatism as a philosophy and not an ideology.  I believe this was epitomized by Reagan's "Big Tent" back in the day, and is what Trump has also tapped into. Conservatives, by and large, are not ideologues. This is not to say they don't have some ideological beliefs... libertarians and social conservatives have passionate ideological beliefs. It is their conservative philosophy which unites them under the proverbial "big tent" and they can accept their differences ideologically for the sake of this philosophy. 

The Left and establishment GOP completely misunderstand Conservative philosophy. They have been indoctrinated with the belief that "Conservative" is an ideology and they have filled the ideological tree with all sorts of horrible and extreme examples to form a Frankenstein ideology they can do battle against with their "superior" Liberal ideology... or "moderate" ideology in the case of the GOP.  Credit to their favor, it has worked brilliantly since 1992. 

I have also written many threads saying what Conservatives needed was a strong voice who knew how to articulate Conservative philosophy and unite Conservatives once again... that voice seems to be Mr. Trump. He doesn't have the party ties, he is not in the pocket of the lobbyists and big corporations, he is his own man. He can very easily appeal to the silent majority... the half the country who never vote. This should scare the shit out of party loyalists... and I believe it does.


----------



## Geaux4it

NYcarbineer said:


> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.


What's embarrassing is your support of a failed Presidency. Mr Obama is seeing it right In front of him. Take your social engineering experiment and cram it.

-Geaux


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.
> 
> That's not how reality works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Corky... you need to learn how to read graphs... or maybe learn double-digit numbers.... 38% is higher than 34% or 23%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'? We've done this dance before, slick. You lost. And we'll do it again. The majority of Americans are not conservatives. They are self identified moderates and liberals. 57% to 38%.
> 
> You know this. You pretend it isn't so. And reality doesn't change just because you close your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'?*
> 
> The one where 38 is greater than 34 and 23.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that math doesn't work. As it doesn't matter what you compare 38% to, its not 'most'. Most is at least half. And you don't have anywhere near those numbers. Meanwhile, moderates and liberals make up 57% of Americans.

Just FYI, 57% is 'most'. As in 'most Americans are liberal or moderate.' Or 'most Americans *aren't* conservatives'.

See how that works?



> Yeah, we've been through this before... you want to lay claim to all the moderates as if none of them are conservative.



A self proclaimed moderate isn't a liberal or a conservative. But a moderate. How do we know?

*We asked.* These are self identified numbers. Much like your 'Lincoln campaigned on Abolition' idiocy, you're quite literally arguing your imagination. Where you pretend that you know more than folks do themselves about their own political ideology.

Um.....you don't. No matter how hard you pretend. And no, most Americans aren't conservative. And you already knew this.


----------



## rightwinger

DarkFury said:


> *Democrats better get ready! Thats not the only poll!
> 
> 
> 
> *


 
A dream for Hillary

Of course Trump will not win but he will cause enough damage to the other Republicans to make them unelectable


----------



## DarkFury

rightwinger said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats better get ready! Thats not the only poll!
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dream for Hillary
> 
> Of course Trump will not win but he will cause enough damage to the other Republicans to make them unelectable
Click to expand...

*You just keeping your hope alive idiot. And Trumps numbers are STILL going up..*


----------



## Boss

*A self proclaimed moderate isn't a liberal or a conservative. *

Exactly, so why are you trying to lump them together with the liberals? IF we're going to divide three ways and use your data... which I don't agree with, btw... then there are more conservatives than either moderates or liberals. 

But the thing is... your entire graph is prefaced on a falsification. You are comparing two *measures* and an *ideology*.  Or two apples and an orange.  "moderate" and "conservative" are measures... the third would be "extreme." Liberalism is an ideology. There are conservative liberals. Bill Clinton is a conservative liberal. How would he register on your graph? A moderate? He's not a moderate liberal and he's not an extreme liberal... he is a conservative one.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, most voters aren't conservatives. Most voters are moderates and liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You literally hallucinate conservatives that don't exist, and ignore anyone who self identifies as a moderate or a liberal as 'actually' being a conservative.
> 
> That's not how reality works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Corky... you need to learn how to read graphs... or maybe learn double-digit numbers.... 38% is higher than 34% or 23%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'? We've done this dance before, slick. You lost. And we'll do it again. The majority of Americans are not conservatives. They are self identified moderates and liberals. 57% to 38%.
> 
> You know this. You pretend it isn't so. And reality doesn't change just because you close your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sigh.....in what world is 38% 'most americans'?*
> 
> The one where 38 is greater than 34 and 23.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that math doesn't work. As it doesn't matter what you compare 38% to, its not 'most'. Most is at least half. And you don't have anywhere near those numbers. Meanwhile, moderates and liberals make up 57% of Americans.
> 
> Just FYI, 57% is 'most'. As in 'most Americans are liberal or moderate.' Or 'most Americans *aren't* conservatives'.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we've been through this before... you want to lay claim to all the moderates as if none of them are conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A self proclaimed moderate isn't a liberal or a conservative. But a moderate. How do we know?
> 
> *We asked.* These are self identified numbers. Much like your 'Lincoln campaigned on Abolition' idiocy, you're quite literally arguing your imagination. Where you pretend that you know more than folks do themselves about their own political ideology.
> 
> Um.....you don't. No matter how hard you pretend. And no, most Americans aren't conservative. And you already knew this.
Click to expand...


People.


Boss said:


> *A self proclaimed moderate isn't a liberal or a conservative. *
> 
> Exactly, so why are you trying to lump them together with the liberals? IF we're going to divide three ways and use your data... which I don't agree with, btw... then there are more conservatives than either moderates or liberals.
> 
> But the thing is... your entire graph is prefaced on a falsification. You are comparing two *measures* and an *ideology*.  Or two apples and an orange.  "moderate" and "conservative" are measures... the third would be "extreme." Liberalism is an ideology. There are conservative liberals. Bill Clinton is a conservative liberal. How would he register on your graph? A moderate? He's not a moderate liberal and he's not an extreme liberal... he is a conservative one.



You're kind of equivocating on the terms there, aren't you? Liberal and conservative are both measures, and they're both ideologies, depending on the context.


----------



## Boss

dblack said:


> You're kind of equivocating on the terms there, aren't you? Liberal and conservative are both measures, and they're both ideologies, depending on the context.



Conservative is not an ideology, Liberalism is.  Moderate, like conservative and extreme, is a measure. If the poll had asked are you conservative, moderate or extreme... may have been a completely different graph. But liberals don't like to be called extremists or radicals... it's what they are, but they don't like that tag so they call themselves Liberals. 

THEY are the ones who created the Frankenstein ideology of Conservatism, which includes every undesirable viewpoint known to man and then some. Conservatism is a philosophy and it is actually the "moderate" philosophy to extremism. Moderates are people confused by the false Frankenstein ideology, they don't want to be associated with that but they are also not down with Liberalism so they define themselves as "Moderates" but their philosophy is mostly conservative.


----------



## francoHFW

Go Donald, blow up the Foxbot/hater dupe New BS GOP. ONLY GOPer I'd consider voting for. Says what he thinks and not bought off. If any of the others did, it'd be the end of the party lol...


----------



## Camp

Who took that poll?


----------



## dblack

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're kind of equivocating on the terms there, aren't you? Liberal and conservative are both measures, and they're both ideologies, depending on the context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative is not an ideology, Liberalism is.  Moderate, like conservative and extreme, is a measure.
Click to expand...


You're acting as if these words have only one meaning, but you know better.



> THEY are the ones who created the Frankenstein ideology of Conservatism, which includes every undesirable viewpoint known to man and then some. Conservatism is a philosophy and it is actually the "moderate" philosophy to extremism. Moderates are people confused by the false Frankenstein ideology, they don't want to be associated with that but they are also not down with Liberalism so they define themselves as "Moderates" but their philosophy is mostly conservative.



Again, one can make exactly the same claims about Liberalism. And I can just as genuinely claim that most moderates don't want to be associated with the Frankenstein ideology of Librul, so they identify as moderates, but really they're mostly liberal. 

I'm not making an "it's all wash argument", ideology is important, but you _are_ equivocating on different definitions. There are ideologies, however murky and convoluted they may be, that we identify as Liberal and Conservative - often referred to as left and right wing. And there are the characterizations (measures) of liberal and conservative.


----------



## Camp

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're kind of equivocating on the terms there, aren't you? Liberal and conservative are both measures, and they're both ideologies, depending on the context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative is not an ideology, Liberalism is.  Moderate, like conservative and extreme, is a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're acting as if these words have only one meaning, but you know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY are the ones who created the Frankenstein ideology of Conservatism, which includes every undesirable viewpoint known to man and then some. Conservatism is a philosophy and it is actually the "moderate" philosophy to extremism. Moderates are people confused by the false Frankenstein ideology, they don't want to be associated with that but they are also not down with Liberalism so they define themselves as "Moderates" but their philosophy is mostly conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, one can make exactly the same claims about Liberalism. And I can just as genuinely claim that most moderates don't want to be associated with the Frankenstein ideology of Librul, so they identify as moderates, but really they're mostly liberal.
> 
> I'm not making an "it's all wash argument", ideology is important, but you _are_ equivocating on different definitions. There are ideologies, however murky and convoluted they may be, that we identify as Liberal and Conservative - often referred to as left and right wing. And there are the characterizations (measures) of liberal and conservative.
Click to expand...

Seriously, how can you expect to address someone who tells you conservatism is not an ideology but liberalism is and than goes on a wackadoodle misinformed rant.


----------



## MarcATL

Boss said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fascinating, I've been wondering about this, too.  The conservative base will reject a candidate who strays away from orthodoxy (I saw Fiorina being called a RINO yesterday), but the rules are clearly different for Trump and Trump alone.
> 
> I'd love to see some comments on that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I can explain. First of all, Trump has addressed his changed positions and references Ronald Reagan's switching parties to illustrate how people change their minds over time. I think his supporters believe him when he explains his change of heart on abortion and other issues. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Most of the people supporting Trump are not Republican loyalists. They are fed up with the Republicans AND the Democrats. They are especially fed up with the PC Liberal Left who, quite frankly, want to act like petulant 7th-graders, both when governing and campaigning. The pinheads who would rather rant all day about gay rights, a fucking flag, or "blood shooting" comments instead of having a meaningful dialogue on the problems facing our country.
> 
> THEY ARE DONE! Got it? *DONE!*
> 
> In short... IF you are a partisan political hack... you got a BIG problem and his name is Trump!
Click to expand...

You're describing hard rightwingers, no Democrats or liberals in that depiction at all. Get real.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*




tinydancer - thanks for making the thread.

Here is the entire poll, including internals:

http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/150802_crosstabs_trend_v4_KD1.pdf

Michael Ramlet founded Morning Consult not long ago, it is a very fresh, new polling firm. Ramlet is a Republican.

Reid Wilson is now one of the big movers and shakers in Morning Consult, he gave up his good paying job at WAPO to join the firm and do the congressional coverage:

The Washington Post s Reid Wilson Joins Morning Consult To Launch Congress Section

Reid Wilson also wrote a scathing review of 2012 Republican polling:

GOP Grapples With Embarrassing Polling Failures - NationalJournal.com

The firm is very new, so the jury is out.  I don't judge a firm by it's political affiliations, but rather, by its results, so I'll be very interested to see how Morning Consult performs in 2016, to say the least.


There were also presidential matchups in this poll, and the internals for Trump do not jive with other polls at all.

*Clinton (D) 44* / Bush (R) 41, margin = Clinton +3
*Clinton (D) 47* / Trump (R) 41, margin = Clinton +6
*Clinton (D) 46* / Paul (R) 39, margin = Clinton +7
*Clinton (D) 46* / Rubio (R) 39, margin = Clinton +7
*Clinton (D) 48* / Walker (R) 35, margin = Clinton +13


Here are the internals for the Clinton vs. Trump matchup:



 

 



I boxed in some numbers that are critical benchmarks:

Female vote: *Clinton +16* (Obama won the female vote by +11 in 2012)
Male vote: *Trump +5* (Romney won the male vote by +7 in 2012)

Seniors, 65 or older: Trump +2 (Romney won this group by +11 in 2012)
Latino vote: Hillary +27. This figure is very likely way too low, she is likely closer to +38-+40.
Jewish vote: Trump +7. Uhm, no. The Democrat will easily win the Jewish vote.
AA vote: Hillary at 75%? Nope. She will get around 90%, just like in the last 12 cycles, without fail.
Catholic vote: TIE. Possibly. Obama won the Catholic vote by +2
Evangelical vote: Trump +11 (Trump won the EV vote by +57, so this number is likely also wrong)
Region: Midwest: Clinton +10. Big number there.
Rural vote: Trump +7 - that is a big surprise. Usually, the R wins the rural vote by about +20.

2,029 RV, MoE = +/-2.0

So, while you are celebrating Trump getting to 32% in a poll by a Republican pollster, if you accept that data, then you must also accept that Hillary is still winning against all 5 GOPers pitted against her, and again, the results are coming from a Republican firm. Walker does especially poorly against her.  All of her wins are outside of the MoE.

Again, thanks for making the thread!

Derideo_Te
AceRothstein
Nyvin
Luddly Neddite
rightwinger


----------



## EricJ

Muhammed said:


> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.


Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

EricJ said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
Click to expand...


  Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
  And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death of what passes for government these days.


----------



## Vigilante

NYcarbineer said:


> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.




It's a shame that asshole liberals stand behind this CRIMINAL and are to stupid to be embarrassed..... Trump is A SAINT compared to The Medusa!


----------



## MarcATL

HereWeGoAgain said:


> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back. 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

MarcATL said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


  WTF does that have to do with the upcoming election?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MarcATL said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail


----------



## MarcATL

SassyIrishLass said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
Click to expand...

Yeah, uhm...no.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MarcATL said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your boy is a FUCKING disaster


----------



## MarcATL

HereWeGoAgain said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the upcoming election?
Click to expand...

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcATL

SassyIrishLass said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your boy is a FUCKING disaster
Click to expand...

ROTFLMBAO! 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

MarcATL said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the upcoming election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


  Than why do you want socialism? It's got a 100% failure record.


----------



## MarcATL

HereWeGoAgain said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the upcoming election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why do you want socialism? It's got a 100% failure record.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMBAO! 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MarcATL said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your boy is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMBAO!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Lame response, dumb ass, I know you can't prove me wrong.  You can always tell when you're cornered, you use that stupid "ROFTLMBO", shit. You're a s big a failure as your boy


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac




----------



## BluesLegend

MarcATL said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


What are you smoking bro?


----------



## mudwhistle

aris2chat said:


> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.



And he earned his riches.....while politicians steal from us.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> *A self proclaimed moderate isn't a liberal or a conservative. *
> 
> Exactly, so why are you trying to lump them together with the liberals? IF we're going to divide three ways and use your data... which I don't agree with, btw... then there are more conservatives than either moderates or liberals.



Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.

This is key to your fallacious assumptions on electability of hard right candidates. You assume that most Americans are conservative, despite overwhelming contradiction and jack shit backing up your assertions. And then even more ludicrously, assume that majority of the people want a hard right candidate.

They really don't. The majority of the people are moderates and liberals. Neither of which are terribly receptive to hard right candidates.



> But the thing is... your entire graph is prefaced on a falsification. You are comparing two *measures* and an *ideology*.  Or two apples and an orange.  "moderate" and "conservative" are measures... the third would be "extreme.



Says you, citing you. And like you idiot 'Lincoln campaigned on Abolition' gibberish demonstrates, you citing you doesn't amount to much. The distinctions you've made up have no relevance to anyone else. As no else uses them. Or is even aware of your personal opinion.

Sorry, Boss....but your personal opinion doesn't define anyone else's. And your argument is dependent on you defining other people's opinions. Which is why you failed.


----------



## The Rabbi

aris2chat said:


> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.


What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
-Gun control
-Abortion
-Crony capitalism
-Higher taxes
he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.


----------



## mudwhistle

nat4900 said:


> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??


His ideology is more in line with the mainstream. Plain and simple. 

He believes in what works. He believes in solutions not the status-quo. He believes in choice but not government funding. He also believes in kicking the shit out of our enemies and our competitors. And he believes in honesty.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By any rational standard, Trump is an obvious RINO by their own standards. Yet they still support him. Are they  irrational? If their stated goal is taken at face value, you bet. But.....if they are sick of politics and politicians and want to express their dissatisfaction for a party they don't believe takes them seriously? Then their actions are explicitly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fascinating, I've been wondering about this, too.  The conservative base will reject a candidate who strays away from orthodoxy (I saw Fiorina being called a RINO yesterday), but the rules are clearly different for Trump and Trump alone.
> 
> I'd love to see some comments on that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I can explain. First of all, Trump has addressed his changed positions and references Ronald Reagan's switching parties to illustrate how people change their minds over time. I think his supporters believe him when he explains his change of heart on abortion and other issues. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


Obvious nonsense. Trumps call for conditional amnesty for illegals and his admiration for European style universal healthcare wasn't Trump 'changing his mind over time'.

*That shit was last week.* One on national television.

And yet despite condemning both policy positions vehemently, you inexplicably declare Trump a 'true conservative'. A true conservative that lauds single payer healthcare and amnesty for illegals? How you do those mental gymnastics, I'll never know.


----------



## mudwhistle

pismoe said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please help me understand this:
> 
> All of you who are cheering for Trump (including me, BTW) are stating that he is "giving it" to RINOs.......
> 
> However, Trump is FOR single payer HC; FOR a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) and Trump is FOR curbing excesses of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> So, who really is the RINO??
> 
> 
> 
> HEARD that he was for those things but also HEARD that he has evolved and changed his mind NAT .  No matter though , I'd rather have a Trump that 'may' be good on immigration and a few other things then a 'rino' like bush , christy , roobio .  No matter how it goes , it looks like Trump is hurting the 'gop' brand and I like that Nat .
Click to expand...


Democrats can evolve.

Republicans can't........


----------



## 007

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?

I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?

My picks for prez are...

1) Trump
2) Cruz
3) Fiorina

... in that order, or any combination of either.


----------



## MarcATL

The Rabbi said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
Click to expand...

Do it! 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## guno

In 2011 a year before the elections mr 9.99 plan Cain checks in as the first choice of 27 percent of Republican voters in the poll,

Who will be the next clown to take the lead this time around?

Each of the clown will have a chance to lead in the polls and in the end Bush will be the republican standard bearer and all the republicans will line up behind him even after saying he is a rino, just like 2012 with romney

NBC WSJ poll Cain now leads GOP pack - politics - Decision 2012 NBC News


----------



## guno

007 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
Click to expand...



Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !


----------



## 007

guno said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
Click to expand...

Oooohh... I'm sorry the "you're fired" reference flies right over your little empty, ass clown squad bubble head.

Maybe someone someday will explain it to you, I won't waste my time.


----------



## mudwhistle

Vikrant said:


> Meghan McCain delivers an ultimate insult to Donald Trump. She calls him a millionaire


OMG!!!!!

That's the worst thing you can call a politician.


----------



## mudwhistle

guno said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
Click to expand...

Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.

They only can read what they're told to read

Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.


----------



## Skylar

mudwhistle said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.
> 
> They only can read what they're told to read
> 
> Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.
Click to expand...


You realize that Trump polls best among those with the least education, right?


----------



## MathewSmith

Polls are not impressive. We have 318 million people in the US and maybe a third end up voting or are at least registered. Most working people are to busy and tired to go stand in a long line to vote sometime 3- 4 hours.


----------



## 007

Skylar said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.
> 
> They only can read what they're told to read
> 
> Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that Trump polls best among those with the least education, right?
Click to expand...

What I do realize is that you're talking out your ass.


----------



## aris2chat

MarcATL said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do it!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Politicians need to garner cooperation, not alienation with a loud offensive mouth.
We don't need another president with an executive order pen supper glued to his hand

We need government to work together for all the people and all the states.

We need people who can be nice not one that throws verbal erratic offensive abuses and people who don't kiss his feet.

No trump king

Trump will be a krushchev throwing shoes and threatening atomic warfare.

Trump can't fire congress if congress won't be ordered around by trump.  Both sides need to learn to play nice, to give and take for the sake of the nation.

Trump might be a character on TV, but he is not president of the nation material.

He is opinionated for sure but the nation does not work like a business with a CEO.  Presidents have to work with not threaten or abuse the rest of government or the people of the nation if they criticize or ask questions he does not approve of.

He might make an interesting talking head, but not a president.  As president, he not king and can't 'rule' the country like he is.

As president he has to be a part of the engine of government, not a reckless driver going off a cliff because the breaks are bad, the transmission skips second gear and won't downshift.


----------



## Skylar

007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.
> 
> They only can read what they're told to read
> 
> Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that Trump polls best among those with the least education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do realize is that you're talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


What you haven't quite clued into yet is that I've done more research on this topic than you have.



> *Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans*
> 
> .."To be clear, the poll found that 60 percent of all Americans support the idea of offering undocumented immigrants currently in the United States some form of legal status, and 57 percent told pollsters they believe that immigrants strengthen the country. But there are plenty of people who see things differently. And those people appear to be concentrated among whites, Republicans and those with lower levels of education
> 
> Donald Trump s surge is all about less-educated Americans - The Washington Post



Even among republicans, a college education appears to be Trump Repellant:






Sounds about right.


----------



## aris2chat

Skylar said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.
> 
> They only can read what they're told to read
> 
> Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that Trump polls best among those with the least education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do realize is that you're talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you haven't quite clued into yet is that I've done more research on this topic than you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans*
> 
> .."To be clear, the poll found that 60 percent of all Americans support the idea of offering undocumented immigrants currently in the United States some form of legal status, and 57 percent told pollsters they believe that immigrants strengthen the country. But there are plenty of people who see things differently. And those people appear to be concentrated among whites, Republicans and those with lower levels of education
> 
> Donald Trump s surge is all about less-educated Americans - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even among republicans, a college education appears to be Trump Repellant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds about right.
Click to expand...


smarter people see through the bluster.  The rest see trump like a church evangelist speaking from the pulpit that god will rapture the country.  People have to fix the problems, not expect a miracle from some inexplicable force.

Trump cannot sweep in and reorganize the whole countrie's government into his image.


----------



## amrchaos

Skylar said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.
> 
> They only can read what they're told to read
> 
> Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that Trump polls best among those with the least education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do realize is that you're talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you haven't quite clued into yet is that I've done more research on this topic than you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans*
> 
> .."To be clear, the poll found that 60 percent of all Americans support the idea of offering undocumented immigrants currently in the United States some form of legal status, and 57 percent told pollsters they believe that immigrants strengthen the country. But there are plenty of people who see things differently. And those people appear to be concentrated among whites, Republicans and those with lower levels of education
> 
> Donald Trump s surge is all about less-educated Americans - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even among republicans, a college education appears to be Trump Repellant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds about right.
Click to expand...


60% w/GED?  Chest-thumpers?


aris2chat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do it!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians need to garner cooperation, not alienation with a loud offensive mouth.
> We don't need another president with an executive order pen supper glued to his hand
> 
> We need government to work together for all the people and all the states.
> 
> We need people who can be nice not one that throws verbal erratic offensive abuses and people who don't kiss his feet.
> 
> No trump king
> 
> Trump will be a krushchev throwing shoes and threatening atomic warfare.
> 
> Trump can't fire congress if congress won't be ordered around by trump.  Both sides need to learn to play nice, to give and take for the sake of the nation.
> 
> Trump might be a character on TV, but he is not president of the nation material.
> 
> He is opinionated for sure but the nation does not work like a business with a CEO.  Presidents have to work with not threaten or abuse the rest of government or the people of the nation if they criticize or ask questions he does not approve of.
> 
> He might make an interesting talking head, but not a president.  As president, he not king and can't 'rule' the country like he is.
> 
> As president he has to be a part of the engine of government, not a reckless driver going off a cliff because the breaks are bad, the transmission skips second gear and won't downshift.
Click to expand...


You want a _Gentleman/Lady_ President?
But such a president would use polite language, i.e. come across politically correct.

See the problem?


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.



No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.


----------



## Boss

MarcATL said:


> You're describing hard rightwingers, no Democrats or liberals in that depiction at all.



There is no such thing as "hard right" unless you're talking about anarchists like Tim McVeigh.. they don't vote in democratic elections. What you are talking about are *Conservatives* and they make up the majority of the population. And last I checked, liberals and democrats aren't supporting Trump and he's not courting or expecting their votes.


----------



## Darkwind

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


You may not be aware of this, but Trump is the biggest RINO in the race...


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
Click to expand...


No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.

You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.


----------



## guno

007 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooohh... I'm sorry the "you're fired" reference flies right over your little empty, ass clown squad bubble head.
> 
> Maybe someone someday will explain it to you, I won't waste my time.
Click to expand...



Yes mr chist stain you do that


----------



## MarcATL

Boss said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're describing hard rightwingers, no Democrats or liberals in that depiction at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "hard right" unless you're talking about anarchists like Tim McVeigh.. they don't vote in democratic elections. What you are talking about are *Conservatives* and they make up the majority of the population. And last I checked, liberals and democrats aren't supporting Trump and he's not courting or expecting their votes.
Click to expand...

You're right about one thing, that today's self-proclaimed Conservatives are actually hard rightwingers. 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## JimH52

Zander said:


> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!



No, he is the bearded lady....everyone wants to see him.


----------



## JimH52

NYcarbineer said:


> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.



They will all deny they even know who Trump is when that happens.


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
Click to expand...


"boy"?

The President is 54 years old.

Are you smoking some good weed?


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
Click to expand...


Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative. 

Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Rabbi said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
Click to expand...


You finally got something right.

Wow.  It's a good day for you.


----------



## JimH52

007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the first guy to run for president since I can remember that doesn't talk like some PREPROGRAMMED, POLITICALLY CORRECT, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN, and people RELATE TO THAT. They also know he CAN'T BE BOUGHT by a pack of LOBBYISTS. What the FUCK about that don't the IDIOT PUNDITS and Washington insiders GET?
> 
> I hope he is the next president. I believe he loves this country and wants to get it back on track, and what better person to do it than someone who already has built a mega fortune and has dealt with the world economically?
> 
> My picks for prez are...
> 
> 1) Trump
> 2) Cruz
> 3) Fiorina
> 
> ... in that order, or any combination of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama cannot be fired , he will leave office when his term is up after being Elected twice by the American people. TWICE !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup......because most of them don't read or write good.
> 
> They only can read what they're told to read
> 
> Pay attention to Kim Kardashian's ass......not national security, open borders, and shrinking paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that Trump polls best among those with the least education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do realize is that you're talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


Hey, it works for Trump!


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You finally got something right.
> 
> Wow.  It's a good day for you.
Click to expand...

Puts me way ahead of you.  You never get anything right.


----------



## bodecea

JimH52 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that conservatives are too stupid to be embarrassed,
> 
> because when the Trump pretend candidacy disappears it would be so much fun to embarrass his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will all deny they even know who Trump is when that happens.
Click to expand...

Yes they will....but we have the threads and the posts!


----------



## bodecea

Statistikhengst said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
Click to expand...

No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative.
> 
> Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.
Click to expand...


For the first time in the decade and a half that Gallup has been tracking Americans’ ideologies, the percentage of those identifying their views on social issues as liberal has equaled the percentage of those who call themselves socially conservative.

Among 1,024 adults surveyed earlier this month, 31 percent said they were socially liberal — and 31 percent said they were socially conservative.



Read more: Social liberals equal conservatives for first time in Gallup poll - Nick Gass - POLITICO

The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.

Republican Conservative Base Shrinks


----------



## Statistikhengst

bodecea said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
Click to expand...



Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Rabbi said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You finally got something right.
> 
> Wow.  It's a good day for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Puts me way ahead of you.  You never get anything right.
Click to expand...



Only in your wet-dreams.


----------



## Boss

MarcATL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're describing hard rightwingers, no Democrats or liberals in that depiction at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "hard right" unless you're talking about anarchists like Tim McVeigh.. they don't vote in democratic elections. What you are talking about are *Conservatives* and they make up the majority of the population. And last I checked, liberals and democrats aren't supporting Trump and he's not courting or expecting their votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right about one thing, that today's self-proclaimed Conservatives are actually hard rightwingers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


But that's not what I said. Man, you fuckwits have a hard time quoting people accurately, don't you? 

What you and other lying shitstain liberal calls "hard right" is _Conservative_, and it doesn't matter if they are a social conservative, libertarian conservative, neo-conservative, fiscal conservative or constitutional conservative... they're all lumped in together as "hard right" because you need a _Frankenstein ideology_ to attack and defeat with your glorious Liberal ideology. 

There is no "hard right" or "far right" ...or at least not to any degree it matters in American politics. Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology, so it's like claiming there are moderate extremists.


----------



## MarcATL

Boss said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're describing hard rightwingers, no Democrats or liberals in that depiction at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "hard right" unless you're talking about anarchists like Tim McVeigh.. they don't vote in democratic elections. What you are talking about are *Conservatives* and they make up the majority of the population. And last I checked, liberals and democrats aren't supporting Trump and he's not courting or expecting their votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right about one thing, that today's self-proclaimed Conservatives are actually hard rightwingers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what I said. Man, you fuckwits have a hard time quoting people accurately, don't you?
> 
> What you and other lying shitstain liberal calls "hard right" is _Conservative_, and it doesn't matter if they are a social conservative, libertarian conservative, neo-conservative, fiscal conservative or constitutional conservative... they're all lumped in together as "hard right" because you need a _Frankenstein ideology_ to attack and defeat with your glorious Liberal ideology.
> 
> There is no "hard right" or "far right" ...or at least not to any degree it matters in American politics. Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology, so it's like claiming there are moderate extremists.
Click to expand...

You just confirmed it again, today's self-proclaimed Conservatives are, in actuality, hard rightwingers. 

We're in agreement. 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## guno

The Rabbi said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You finally got something right.
> 
> Wow.  It's a good day for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Puts me way ahead of you.  You never get anything right.
Click to expand...

gee what happened to your prediction on greece?


----------



## guno

SassyIrishLass said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
Click to expand...



Sounds like you got a hold of some bad mackerel


----------



## JimH52

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You finally got something right.
> 
> Wow.  It's a good day for you.
Click to expand...


It won't happen, cause he will never be elected, but it would be a hoot for Trump to win the WH, and the day after he is sworn in turn 180%.  He is a liberal in conservative clothing.


guno said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has them scared. There's donkey shit filling pants and littering the floors and desks in every Democratic Party office in the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a gift -- to Democrats. I love it. And the fact that he is the Republican front runner shows how far Republicans are out of touch with reality. Even delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep..all those RINO's that are running are out of touch with reality.
> But I think reality is starting to set in for some of them.
> And the reality is...people are fucking sick to death for what passes for government these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, Bush ushered in the final destructive implementation that Reagan began. The American people finally said "ENOUGH!!!" and elected Obama twice to get our country back.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you got a hold of some bad mackerel
Click to expand...


You smell fish?  I am sure Donald has a joke or two about that....


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're describing hard rightwingers, no Democrats or liberals in that depiction at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "hard right" unless you're talking about anarchists like Tim McVeigh.. they don't vote in democratic elections. What you are talking about are *Conservatives* and they make up the majority of the population. And last I checked, liberals and democrats aren't supporting Trump and he's not courting or expecting their votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right about one thing, that today's self-proclaimed Conservatives are actually hard rightwingers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what I said. Man, you fuckwits have a hard time quoting people accurately, don't you?
> 
> What you and other lying shitstain liberal calls "hard right" is _Conservative_, and it doesn't matter if they are a social conservative, libertarian conservative, neo-conservative, fiscal conservative or constitutional conservative... they're all lumped in together as "hard right" because you need a _Frankenstein ideology_ to attack and defeat with your glorious Liberal ideology.
> 
> There is no "hard right" or "far right" ...or at least not to any degree it matters in American politics. Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology, so it's like claiming there are moderate extremists.
Click to expand...

You have trouble with big words, don't you?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Statistikhengst said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly Obungles has failed miserably. Massive unemployment and debt, a disaster for foreign policy, race relations gone to hell.....epic fail
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
Click to expand...


Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
Click to expand...

What did you say, girl?


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
Click to expand...


It's always entertaining to watch you act as if you have some magic power to tell people to "sit down".

Lol...

You are an excellent example of what happens when the gene pool goes terribly wrong, Frau Stinkyfotze.


----------



## bodecea

Statistikhengst said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always entertaining to watch you act as if you have some magic power to tell people to "sit down".
> 
> Lol...
> 
> You are an excellent example of what happens when the gene pool goes terribly wrong, Frau Stinkyfotze.
Click to expand...

Well, you know.  She's just a girl.   Not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Boss

paddymurphy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative.
> 
> Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first time in the decade and a half that Gallup has been tracking Americans’ ideologies, the percentage of those identifying their views on social issues as liberal has equaled the percentage of those who call themselves socially conservative.
> 
> Among 1,024 adults surveyed earlier this month, 31 percent said they were socially liberal — and 31 percent said they were socially conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Social liberals equal conservatives for first time in Gallup poll - Nick Gass - POLITICO
> 
> The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.
> 
> Republican Conservative Base Shrinks
> View attachment 47056
Click to expand...


Now you are trying to muddy the waters with Republicans... so you're switching around between parties, ideologies and philosophies or measures of an ideology... all clumped together and fed into your bogus propaganda machine to churn out misleading results. 

Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology and not a philosophy. Moderate means nothing without qualifying it.... Moderate WHAT? Republicans are not all Conservatives. There are Conservative Liberals... Bill Clinton is the best example of one. 

Now... "social conservative" is not Conservative philosophy.... it is an ideology rooted in conservative philosophy. The same can be said for "social libertarian." These two ideologies are diametrically different from each other but they share a common philosophy of Conservatism.


----------



## Boss

JimH52 said:


> You smell fish? I am sure Donald has a joke or two about that....



Oh, I am sure your deviant minds can *INFER* a quote into existence like you've been doing! Just find a clip somewhere of Trump innocently discussing fish with women and you're half-way there! 

We are *ALL* being thoroughly entertained by how sick and perverted your minds are. I mean, I think we already knew you were all sleazebags, we just didn't realize how twisted you were in the head when it comes to imagining crudeness.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uhm...no.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
Click to expand...

He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
Click to expand...


I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out


----------



## BluesLegend

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
Click to expand...


He's half white.


----------



## BluesLegend

I'm going to start calling him a white boy.


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
Click to expand...

Sure, little girl, sure.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, little girl, sure.
Click to expand...


Go shave your back, sock puppet


----------



## Boss

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out



Lass, you have to understand... Liberals, giddy on their power trip, have now proclaimed their right to *freely interpret* meaning into whatever they please and the rest of us must accept their meaning. It can be a flag or a comment... or even a word. Furthermore, their new found ability extends to projecting thoughts into our heads by the sheer power of suggestion. This way, even if you don't say anything... they use the fact that you didn't say anything to imply you thought something... and whatever they claim is empirical truth because... Obama is great. Understand?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Boss said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lass, you have to understand... Liberals, giddy on their power trip, have now proclaimed their right to *freely interpret* meaning into whatever they please and the rest of us must accept their meaning. It can be a flag or a comment... or even a word. Furthermore, their new found ability extends to projecting thoughts into our heads by the sheer power of suggestion. This way, even if you don't say anything... they use the fact that you didn't say anything to imply you thought something... and whatever they claim is empirical truth because... Obama is great. Understand?
Click to expand...


Meh...left loons are nuts and pretty much annoy the hell out of me.


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You finally got something right.
> 
> Wow.  It's a good day for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Puts me way ahead of you.  You never get anything right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your wet-dreams.
Click to expand...

Lair!


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative.
Click to expand...

You may claim that the word 'moderate' has no meaning. But obviously you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



> moderate:
> 
> :a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.
> 
> Moderate Define Moderate at Dictionary.com



Sorry B, but the dictionary is a far better source on the meaning of words than you are. And moderate most definitely has a meaning. Your argument has collapsed so utterly that you're now forced to ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words.

*Um, its not the dictionary that's wrong. Its just you.*

And once again, most Americans are  not conservatives. Most Americans are liberals and moderates. You don't have the slightest clue, not the nearest order of magnitude, what the hell you're talking about. And eagerly wallow in your own self delusion. You have nothing to support your claim and overwhelming evidence contradicting you.

Its 'Linclon campaigning on abolition' all over again. Just you making up hapless bullshit as you go along.



> Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.



Obviously they're not, nor can you offer the slightest evidence to back any of your bullshit. When people are asked if they're conservative, liberal or moderate*.......most people don't say conservative.* Conservatism is dwindling. They're one point off of an all time low. While self identification as a liberal is at an all time high.

And rising.

You're literally lying to yourself. You have nothing to back your claim. And overwhelming evidence contradicting you. Making you doubly irrational. As your belief is fantasy. While the evidence you ignore that contradicts you, reality.

Wallow away. I'll keep laughing


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: it demonstrates the folly of your argument that most Americans are conservative. Its simply not true. Most Americans are NOT conservative. Most are moderate and liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative.
> 
> Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first time in the decade and a half that Gallup has been tracking Americans’ ideologies, the percentage of those identifying their views on social issues as liberal has equaled the percentage of those who call themselves socially conservative.
> 
> Among 1,024 adults surveyed earlier this month, 31 percent said they were socially liberal — and 31 percent said they were socially conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Social liberals equal conservatives for first time in Gallup poll - Nick Gass - POLITICO
> 
> The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.
> 
> Republican Conservative Base Shrinks
> View attachment 47056
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are trying to muddy the waters with Republicans... so you're switching around between parties, ideologies and philosophies or measures of an ideology... all clumped together and fed into your bogus propaganda machine to churn out misleading results.
Click to expand...


Nope. You're just wrong. Once again, you're contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Once again, you ignore it and pretend that you know better than people speaking for themselves..

Laughing...how's that working out for you?



> Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology and not a philosophy.



Says you. The distinction you offer begins and end inside your head, as its nothing but your personal opinion. And we aren't bound to that. Almost none of us know about your opinion, and even fewer care.

You're expressing how *you* see conservatives. And you're nobody when you claim to speak for anybody else..

The folks that self identify as something *other* than a conservative*......you know, a solid majority*.....those folks know what they're talking about regarding their own beliefs. Far better than you do about their beliefs.  And none of the qualifiers you make up have any relevance to anyone but you.

You keep projecting your beliefs onto other people....and then laughably insisting that they must abide your beliefs.

Um, no. They don't.


----------



## Camp

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. Most moderates are conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative.
> 
> Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first time in the decade and a half that Gallup has been tracking Americans’ ideologies, the percentage of those identifying their views on social issues as liberal has equaled the percentage of those who call themselves socially conservative.
> 
> Among 1,024 adults surveyed earlier this month, 31 percent said they were socially liberal — and 31 percent said they were socially conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Social liberals equal conservatives for first time in Gallup poll - Nick Gass - POLITICO
> 
> The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.
> 
> Republican Conservative Base Shrinks
> View attachment 47056
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are trying to muddy the waters with Republicans... so you're switching around between parties, ideologies and philosophies or measures of an ideology... all clumped together and fed into your bogus propaganda machine to churn out misleading results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just wrong. Once again, you're contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Once again, you ignore it and pretend that you know better than people speaking for themselves..
> 
> Laughing...how's that working out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology and not a philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. The distinction you offer begins and end inside your head, as its nothing but your personal opinion. And we aren't bound to that. Almost none of us know about your opinion, and even fewer care.
> 
> You're expressing how *you* see conservatives. And you're nobody when you claim to speak for anybody else..
> 
> The folks that self identify as something *other* than a conservative*......you know, a solid majority*.....those folks know what they're talking about regarding their own beliefs. Far better than you do about their beliefs.  And none of the qualifiers you make up have any relevance to anyone but you.
> 
> You keep projecting your beliefs onto other people....and then laughably insisting that they must abide your beliefs.
> 
> Um, no. They don't.
Click to expand...


This guy hasn't a clue about the things he talks about. What kind of dope would say conservatism is not an ideology. Well, this guy would say that. He doesn't know the meanings of words and is to lazy to find out.


----------



## JimH52

Boss said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You smell fish? I am sure Donald has a joke or two about that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am sure your deviant minds can *INFER* a quote into existence like you've been doing! Just find a clip somewhere of Trump innocently discussing fish with women and you're half-way there!
> 
> We are *ALL* being thoroughly entertained by how sick and perverted your minds are. I mean, I think we already knew you were all sleazebags, we just didn't realize how twisted you were in the head when it comes to imagining crudeness.
Click to expand...


Send Donald a Tweet and ask for a couple of zingers.  He might even throw in a "slut", "pig" or or "loser" to describe some women.  He has such a way with words....


----------



## Skylar

Camp said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Most moderates are moderates. Their self identification is far more relevant than you pretending that you know better. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. While they are the world's leading expert on their own political leanings.
> 
> You're deluding yourself, literally ignoring reality and clinging to whatever you imagine. And its gloriously meaningless to the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderate has no meaning without qualification. Moderate WHAT?  Sorry... entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. You can't lay claim to all the moderates as "non-conservative" because most of them are defining themselves as moderate conservatives. You've offered nothing to disprove this or to prove that all moderates are non-conservative.
> 
> Most of this country is philosophically conservative as opposed to ideologically liberal. Liberal ideologues such as yourself, make up only 23%... far from a majority. YOU are the delusional one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first time in the decade and a half that Gallup has been tracking Americans’ ideologies, the percentage of those identifying their views on social issues as liberal has equaled the percentage of those who call themselves socially conservative.
> 
> Among 1,024 adults surveyed earlier this month, 31 percent said they were socially liberal — and 31 percent said they were socially conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Social liberals equal conservatives for first time in Gallup poll - Nick Gass - POLITICO
> 
> The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.
> 
> Republican Conservative Base Shrinks
> View attachment 47056
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are trying to muddy the waters with Republicans... so you're switching around between parties, ideologies and philosophies or measures of an ideology... all clumped together and fed into your bogus propaganda machine to churn out misleading results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just wrong. Once again, you're contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Once again, you ignore it and pretend that you know better than people speaking for themselves..
> 
> Laughing...how's that working out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology and not a philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. The distinction you offer begins and end inside your head, as its nothing but your personal opinion. And we aren't bound to that. Almost none of us know about your opinion, and even fewer care.
> 
> You're expressing how *you* see conservatives. And you're nobody when you claim to speak for anybody else..
> 
> The folks that self identify as something *other* than a conservative*......you know, a solid majority*.....those folks know what they're talking about regarding their own beliefs. Far better than you do about their beliefs.  And none of the qualifiers you make up have any relevance to anyone but you.
> 
> You keep projecting your beliefs onto other people....and then laughably insisting that they must abide your beliefs.
> 
> Um, no. They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This guy hasn't a clue about the things he talks about. What kind of dope would say conservatism is not an ideology. Well, this guy would say that. He doesn't know the meanings of words and is to lazy to find out.
Click to expand...


Boss routinely talks straight out of his ass. Evidence is utterly pointless and irrelevant to his process. He doesn't use it to form opinions. And no amount of it will sway him from whatever he chooses to believe.

Though he is fun to use to demonstrate some of the absurd contradictions of fringe conservatives.


----------



## tinydancer

JimH52 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You smell fish? I am sure Donald has a joke or two about that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am sure your deviant minds can *INFER* a quote into existence like you've been doing! Just find a clip somewhere of Trump innocently discussing fish with women and you're half-way there!
> 
> We are *ALL* being thoroughly entertained by how sick and perverted your minds are. I mean, I think we already knew you were all sleazebags, we just didn't realize how twisted you were in the head when it comes to imagining crudeness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Send Donald a Tweet and ask for a couple of zingers.  He might even throw in a "slut", "pig" or or "loser" to describe some women.  He has such a way with words....
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly those terms were used by the Clinton camp when they were referring to the women involved in the "bimbo eruptions" so don't play holier than fucking thou here JimH52 because then you enter the liberal world of ultimate hypocrisy.


----------



## JimH52

tinydancer said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You smell fish? I am sure Donald has a joke or two about that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am sure your deviant minds can *INFER* a quote into existence like you've been doing! Just find a clip somewhere of Trump innocently discussing fish with women and you're half-way there!
> 
> We are *ALL* being thoroughly entertained by how sick and perverted your minds are. I mean, I think we already knew you were all sleazebags, we just didn't realize how twisted you were in the head when it comes to imagining crudeness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Send Donald a Tweet and ask for a couple of zingers.  He might even throw in a "slut", "pig" or or "loser" to describe some women.  He has such a way with words....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly those terms were used by the Clinton camp when they were referring to the women involved in the "bimbo eruptions" so don't play holier than fucking thou here JimH52 because then you enter the liberal world of ultimate hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


We all know Trump is the "bearded lady" at the Circus.  Everyone wants to see the talking chimpanzee, but no one wants him to be President.  But I must admit, he is totally screwing over the GOP....


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, little girl, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go shave your back, sock puppet
Click to expand...

Now...is the little girl upset?  Too emotional?  Too immature to be considered a grown woman?  Yes.


----------



## L.K.Eder

The Rabbi said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????
> 
> and we let them vote?
> 
> He is a reality loud mouth, not government leader for all the nation.
> 
> He can't even decide if he wants to be republican or independent.  He just wants TV attention.
> 
> He has an ego bigger than alaska and canada combined, and that is a tight fit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with so-called conservatives and Trump?  If any other candidate stood for:
> -Gun control
> -Abortion
> -Crony capitalism
> -Higher taxes
> he's be booed as a RINO and kicked out.
> But because he's sparkly and says mean nasty shit to people we dont like everyone is all over him.
> Really this is enough to make me join the Constitutional Party or something.
Click to expand...


Hahahaha, amazing. Rabbi is the most lucid rightard on this board.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Statistikhengst said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong....I won't wait. Your *boy* is a FUCKING disaster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always entertaining to watch you act as if you have some magic power to tell people to "sit down".
> 
> Lol...
> 
> You are an excellent example of what happens when the gene pool goes terribly wrong, Frau Stinkyfotze.
Click to expand...

 Hahahaha


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, little girl, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go shave your back, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now...is the little girl upset?  Too emotional?  Too immature to be considered a grown woman?  Yes.
Click to expand...


Won't work this time, I'm well aware of your baiting and reporting, child


----------



## L.K.Eder

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
Click to expand...


A racist quacks and quacks and racist stuff comes out of the racists nose or eyes or wherever.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I'm wondering how anyone is going to be able to support Donald the Chump when he has publicly (on a CNN interview) that he whines until he gets his way?

"I do whine because I want to win and I'm not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.

Trump was pressed for specifics on the issues he's raised on the campaign trail and touched on every issue from abortion to equal pay for women to foreign policy during the half-hourlong interview on Tuesday."

Donald Trump I whine until I win - CNNPolitics.com

I started a thread on this in Politics, called "Donald Trump:  Whiner In Chief?"


----------



## SassyIrishLass

L.K.Eder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A racist quacks and quacks and racist stuff comes out of the racists nose or eyes or wherever.
Click to expand...


Who the hell are you and why should I give a damn? Three comments and you've offered nothing. Off to ignore with you


----------



## SillyWabbit

Tipsycatlover said:


> His favorables are up too.
> 
> This is going to be a rollicking election.
> 
> As HL Mencken said..
> 
> There are times when you just want to spit on your hands,  hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.
> 
> Trump is the black flag.


No one who really raises the "black flag" will make to the Oval Office. But, then again, stranger things have happened...


----------



## L.K.Eder

Lol, scares easily, that little loudmouth.


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
Click to expand...



I'm also from the Midwest and the word "boy" used in reference to a 54 year old black man, especially the most known black man in the world, our President, is very obviously a racist reference, because racists wanted to call black men "boys" as a way of saying that black men, in their opinion, would always be inferior.

So, using the asswipe excuse that you are from the Midwest won't cut it.

Go the path of water and simply admit that you are a disgusting racist.

Don't worry, smart people here in USMB already know it.


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, little girl, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go shave your back, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now...is the little girl upset?  Too emotional?  Too immature to be considered a grown woman?  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't work this time, I'm well aware of your baiting and reporting, child
Click to expand...

Trump may be the bearded lady....you must be the bearded girl.


----------



## bodecea

Statistikhengst said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also from the Midwest and the word "boy" used in reference to a 54 year old black man, especially the most known black man in the world, our President, is very obviously a racist reference, because racists wanted to call black men "boys" as a way of saying that black men, in their opinion, would always be inferior.
> 
> So, using the asswipe excuse that you are from the Midwest won't cut it.
> 
> Go the path of water and simply admit that you are a disgusting racist.
> 
> Don't worry, smart people here in USMB already know it.
Click to expand...

Well..."girl" is used for grown women for the same reason.....which makes perfect sense for Sassy girl.


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, little girl, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go shave your back, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now...is the little girl upset?  Too emotional?  Too immature to be considered a grown woman?  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't work this time, I'm well aware of your baiting and reporting, child
Click to expand...


You seem angry. Do you have anger issues?


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A racist quacks and quacks and racist stuff comes out of the racists nose or eyes or wherever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the hell are you and why should I give a damn? Three comments and you've offered nothing. Off to ignore with you
Click to expand...



Yes, indeed, you have anger problems.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "boy"?
> 
> The President is 54 years old.
> 
> Are you smoking some good weed?
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
Click to expand...

And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.


----------



## L.K.Eder

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
Click to expand...

She does not have time to not show her stupidity and bigotry, because america is losing the fight to mexicans.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Fuckin pc police..


----------



## JimH52

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm wondering how anyone is going to be able to support Donald the Chump when he has publicly (on a CNN interview) that he whines until he gets his way?
> 
> "I do whine because I want to win and I'm not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.
> 
> Trump was pressed for specifics on the issues he's raised on the campaign trail and touched on every issue from abortion to equal pay for women to foreign policy during the half-hourlong interview on Tuesday."
> 
> Donald Trump I whine until I win - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> I started a thread on this in Politics, called "Donald Trump:  Whiner In Chief?"



Anyone who thinks Trump has a chance is living in YaYa land.


----------



## Zander

JimH52 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how anyone is going to be able to support Donald the Chump when he has publicly (on a CNN interview) that he whines until he gets his way?
> 
> "I do whine because I want to win and I'm not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.
> 
> Trump was pressed for specifics on the issues he's raised on the campaign trail and touched on every issue from abortion to equal pay for women to foreign policy during the half-hourlong interview on Tuesday."
> 
> Donald Trump I whine until I win - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> I started a thread on this in Politics, called "Donald Trump:  Whiner In Chief?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Trump has a chance is living in YaYa land.
Click to expand...


I felt the same way about Obama in 2008.


----------



## Votto

SassyIrishLass said:


> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance


 
What is stunning is that all the other candidates observe the same thing and refuse to do it as well.


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
Click to expand...


Most voters aren't conservatives. 

Conservatives generally account for 30%-35% of voters.

The Conservative Presidential Vote US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Toro

ninja007 said:


> the math is simple. In the US there are more takers than givers, so of course the dems won the last two elections. Promise this, promise that. No responsibility= votes from the dead beats. Of course there are dead beats on the Conservative side; but not as many.



Many, if not most, of those "takers" are senior citizens on social security.  IIRC the majority of old people vote Republican.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> You may claim that the word 'moderate' has no meaning. But obviously you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



I didn't say it had no meaning... I said it has no meaning *without qualification...* is that word too big for you? 

In your pulled definition it says: a person who is *moderate in opinion* or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion. Moderate is qualified by "opinion" but it doesn't tell us what "moderate" is. I am _moderate in the opinion_ that we need to put bullet through your head. I'm no less of a Conservative. 

Incidentally, a Conservative, as defined by your same source.... is;  a person who is opposed to extreme views and radical actions. Same definition as that of a Moderate.


----------



## Toro

Jackson said:


> He has created more jobs than any other business man, except say Bill Gates.



No he hasn't.


----------



## ninja007

oreo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
Click to expand...


he doesn't want illegals here; this is a bad thing? What about all the people who abide by the law and are waiting?


----------



## paddymurphy

Votto said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is stunning is that all the other candidates observe the same thing and refuse to do it as well.
Click to expand...

What is his position?  It changes daily.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...we know exactly what Sassy was getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
Click to expand...


Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voters aren't conservatives.
> 
> Conservatives generally account for 30%-35% of voters.
> 
> The Conservative Presidential Vote US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Nope... Most voters ARE conservative. They are not necessarily ideologues (i.e.; social cons, libertarians) but their philosophy is Conservative.  Again-- Billy Jeff Clinton was a Conservative Liberal. Hillary Clinton ran her last campaign for president as a Conservative Liberal. She is currently the "Conservative" alternative to Bernie Sanders. 

The fact that the Liberal Left has stigmatized "Conservative" in the minds of the general public doesn't mean a damn thing. You've created a boogie-man to do battle against with your "superior" Liberal ideology and you've dressed the false ideology in every odious and undesirable viewpoint your radical noise machine can think of.


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voters aren't conservatives.
> 
> Conservatives generally account for 30%-35% of voters.
> 
> The Conservative Presidential Vote US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Most voters ARE conservative. They are not necessarily ideologues (i.e.; social cons, libertarians) but their philosophy is Conservative.  Again-- Billy Jeff Clinton was a Conservative Liberal. Hillary Clinton ran her last campaign for president as a Conservative Liberal. She is currently the "Conservative" alternative to Bernie Sanders.
> 
> The fact that the Liberal Left has stigmatized "Conservative" in the minds of the general public doesn't mean a damn thing. You've created a boogie-man to do battle against with your "superior" Liberal ideology and you've dressed the false ideology in every odious and undesirable viewpoint your radical noise machine can think of.
Click to expand...


Your definitions are irrelevant because you are defining these terms to fit your ideology and worldview and thus have no practical meaning.

It doesn't matter what you think a conservative may be.  It doesn't matter what I think a conservative may be.

What matters is what people themselves think.  People self-identify.

And self-identified conservatives are 30%-35% of the electorate.

empiricism > ideology


----------



## Slyhunter

JimH52 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how anyone is going to be able to support Donald the Chump when he has publicly (on a CNN interview) that he whines until he gets his way?
> 
> "I do whine because I want to win and I'm not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.
> 
> Trump was pressed for specifics on the issues he's raised on the campaign trail and touched on every issue from abortion to equal pay for women to foreign policy during the half-hourlong interview on Tuesday."
> 
> Donald Trump I whine until I win - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> I started a thread on this in Politics, called "Donald Trump:  Whiner In Chief?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Trump has a chance is living in YaYa land.
Click to expand...

He's over 32%, he doesn't just have a chance, he's kicking ass.


----------



## paddymurphy

ninja007 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he doesn't want illegals here; this is a bad thing? What about all the people who abide by the law and are waiting?
Click to expand...

He does not support the wholesale deportation of all illegals.  He has a couple of different positions on immigration. 

"I have to tell you, some of these people have been here; they've done a good job; in some cases sadly they've been living under the shadows," Trump said in his telephone interview. "We have to do something, so whether it's merit, or whether it's whatever, but -- I'm a believer in the merit system. Somebody's been outstanding, we (ought to) try to work something out."

So, kind of like the President's view that some undocumented should be able to stay if they have merit.  
"National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg noted that Trump told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in 2011 that he favored a system where the U.S. determined which undocumented immigrants could stay in this country on a "case by case" basis. "

In the 2011 interview, O'Reilly had asked Trump what he would do with "15 million illegal aliens already in the United States." 

"You know, it's hard to generalize, but you're going to have to look at the individual people, see how they've done, see how productive they've been, see what their references are, and then make a decision," Trump said.


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


so 70% of Registered Republicans and Independents who lean right are not on board for Trump? In a field of 17 that might look impressive to the uninitiated and unwashed, but...

I smell a Rudy Giuliani campaign loss


----------



## pismoe

ninja007 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he doesn't want illegals here; this is a bad thing? What about all the people who abide by the law and are waiting?
Click to expand...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         hope that he has plans to exclude or reduce their numbers also Nina !!


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


If the poll had Jeb Bush at 11% I think that would he's in double digits


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I smelled the stench of her racism the moment I entered the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
Click to expand...

You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.


Wow!

Campaign Slogan for you: Contrarians of the GOP Unite!!! or 

"Anger Today, Tomorrow A Fence!"


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Campaign Slogan for you: Contrarians of the GOP Unite!!! or
> 
> "Anger Today, Tomorrow A Fence!"
Click to expand...



"Trump / Palin '16
Cuz megalomaniac'ish-brazen and batshit crazy go together!"


----------



## Statistikhengst

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
Click to expand...


Yes, FattySassyLesbiAss does seem to have a problem with such things..


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, it's Herr Dumb Ass who is too stupid the use of "boy" doesn't always refer to blacks. Sit down, clown
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
Click to expand...


You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool


----------



## Slyhunter

Donald Trump for Prez
Allen West for VP
Scott Walker for Secretary of Labor.


----------



## Boss

Camp said:


> This guy hasn't a clue about the things he talks about. What kind of dope would say conservatism is not an ideology. Well, this guy would say that. He doesn't know the meanings of words and is to lazy to find out.



Again, I've demonstrated how Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Rand Paul is a libertarian conservative and Mike Huckabee is a social conservative... their views on social issues vary greatly... they don't march in lockstep to the same ideology, they share a Conservative philosophy. 

Dopes are people who are too stupid to comprehend what I am saying, which is real easy to understand. And I do indeed know what words mean, the very first and foremost definition of "conservative" defines exactly the political view you call "moderate."


----------



## JimH52

Zander said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how anyone is going to be able to support Donald the Chump when he has publicly (on a CNN interview) that he whines until he gets his way?
> 
> "I do whine because I want to win and I'm not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.
> 
> Trump was pressed for specifics on the issues he's raised on the campaign trail and touched on every issue from abortion to equal pay for women to foreign policy during the half-hourlong interview on Tuesday."
> 
> Donald Trump I whine until I win - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> I started a thread on this in Politics, called "Donald Trump:  Whiner In Chief?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Trump has a chance is living in YaYa land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I felt the same way about Obama in 2008.
Click to expand...




Zander said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how anyone is going to be able to support Donald the Chump when he has publicly (on a CNN interview) that he whines until he gets his way?
> 
> "I do whine because I want to win and I'm not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.
> 
> Trump was pressed for specifics on the issues he's raised on the campaign trail and touched on every issue from abortion to equal pay for women to foreign policy during the half-hourlong interview on Tuesday."
> 
> Donald Trump I whine until I win - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> I started a thread on this in Politics, called "Donald Trump:  Whiner In Chief?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Trump has a chance is living in YaYa land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I felt the same way about Obama in 2008.
Click to expand...


And he won.....TWICE!.....OOOUUCCCHHH!!!  

Trump is polling even behind Joe Biden!


----------



## JimH52

Slyhunter said:


> Donald Trump for Prez
> Allen West for VP
> Scott Walker for Secretary of Labor.



A modern day Larry, Moe, and Curly....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
Click to expand...


well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!! 

*Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*


Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.

Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.

Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”

“The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
…
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.


Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!"

The ridiculous right. 

When Trump's candidacy fails and he drops out of the race, will the OP return to this thread and admit she was wrong – of course not.


----------



## pismoe

Trump is doing very well currently , who knows what the future brings .  I'm happy that Trump is in the mix with his ideas .


----------



## idb

Trump's fun.


----------



## JimH52

SassyIrishLass said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
Click to expand...

:
Go for it Sassy!  Visit a low income minority neighborhood and shout,  "What all you BOYS doing tonight.  How does it feel to be a BOY?"

Let me know how it goes.....


----------



## JimH52

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!"
> 
> The ridiculous right.
> 
> When Trump's candidacy fails and he drops out of the race, will the OP return to this thread and admit she was wrong – of course not.



Nope....she will not know what you sre talking sbout....


----------



## Geaux4it

JimH52 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :
> Go for it Sassy!  Visit a low income minority neighborhood and shout,  "What all you BOYS doing tonight.  How does it feel to be a BOY?"
> 
> Let me know how it goes.....
Click to expand...


They are boys who call everyone Uncle...... That's because they don't know who their daddy is

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

JimH52 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!"
> 
> The ridiculous right.
> 
> When Trump's candidacy fails and he drops out of the race, will the OP return to this thread and admit she was wrong – of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope....she will not know what you sre talking sbout....
Click to expand...


I sure don't know what you're talking about.

-Geaux


----------



## JimH52

Geaux4it said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :
> Go for it Sassy!  Visit a low income minority neighborhood and shout,  "What all you BOYS doing tonight.  How does it feel to be a BOY?"
> 
> Let me know how it goes.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are boys who call everyone Uncle...... That's because they don't know who their daddy is
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Is this you, Donald?


----------



## aris2chat

pismoe said:


> Trump is doing very well currently , who knows what the future brings .  I'm happy that Trump is in the mix with his ideas .



sure he is running a PR and not an election campaign so far.


----------



## pismoe

opinion , opinions , everyone one has opinions Aris !!


----------



## dblack

aris2chat said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is doing very well currently , who knows what the future brings .  I'm happy that Trump is in the mix with his ideas .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is running a PR and not an election campaign so far.
Click to expand...


He's running a carnival sideshow.


----------



## pismoe

its ok with me dblack , sideshow is pretty much the last 7 years and sideshow was going on even before that imo .  Trump sure has some people worked up though and I'm just waiting to see what happens next .  As I've said in many of these threads , its either Trump , Cruz or maybe Carson for me .   If not one of them then its the 'dem' .


----------



## dblack

pismoe said:


> its ok with me dblack , sideshow is pretty much the last 7 years and sideshow was going on even before that imo .  Trump sure has some people worked up though and I'm just waiting to see what happens next .  As I've said in many of these threads , its either Trump , Cruz or maybe Carson for me .   If not one of them then its the 'dem' .



Yeah. Perpetual sideshow, for sure. I'd never waste my time voting for them though.


----------



## tinydancer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!"
> 
> The ridiculous right.
> 
> When Trump's candidacy fails and he drops out of the race, will the OP return to this thread and admit she was wrong – of course not.



Admit I was wrong about what?

That Trump is shaking the political pillars of heaven and hell and making this a race instead of another fucking coronation?

Doesn't matter how it turns out. I'll be right about that.

That Trump is proving hands down the Jeb Bush isn't the be all and end all for the Republican Party and is supposedly another Romney. You know. THE ONLY ONE who can beat Clinton?

Doesn't matter how it turns out. I'll be right about that.

That Trump has got so many people excited because he doesn't take any money and he doesn't take any shit from anyone?

Doesn't matter how it turns out. I'll be right about that.



Want me to continue? I just finished reading that Reverend Franklin Graham is even excited that Trump is in the race.

I love it. Another article. A sold out crowd in Michigan with teenagers coming to see the Donald and claiming he's the Kanye West of politics and those kids are excited that he's in the race.

It doesn't matter how it turns out. Trump is kicking it up notches and kicking the RNC in the ass and I'm not the only one loving it judging by the polls. 

Go Donald! Go Donald!


----------



## tinydancer

dblack said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is doing very well currently , who knows what the future brings .  I'm happy that Trump is in the mix with his ideas .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is running a PR and not an election campaign so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's running a carnival sideshow.
Click to expand...


Beats the hell out of Jeb Bush's campaign doesn't it now. Old Jeb just isn't Mr. Excitement is he?

Trump is ECW.  Chair shots. Top ropes. Rage in the cage. Hell in the cell. The Donald has brought the furniture baby!

Bush is the Scout Leader explaining safety tips for roasting marshmallows.


----------



## dblack

tinydancer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is doing very well currently , who knows what the future brings .  I'm happy that Trump is in the mix with his ideas .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is running a PR and not an election campaign so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's running a carnival sideshow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beats the hell out of Jeb Bush's campaign doesn't it now. Old Jeb just isn't Mr. Excitement is he?
> 
> Trump is ECW.  Chair shots. Top ropes. Rage in the cage. The Donald has brought the furniture baby.
> 
> Bush is the Scout Leader explaining safety tips for roasting marshmallows.
Click to expand...

uh.... ok


----------



## Boss

dblack said:


> He's running a carnival sideshow.



Good job training for when he gets to Washington D.C.!


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voters aren't conservatives.
> 
> Conservatives generally account for 30%-35% of voters.
> 
> The Conservative Presidential Vote US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Most voters ARE conservative. They are not necessarily ideologues (i.e.; social cons, libertarians) but their philosophy is Conservative.  Again-- Billy Jeff Clinton was a Conservative Liberal. Hillary Clinton ran her last campaign for president as a Conservative Liberal. She is currently the "Conservative" alternative to Bernie Sanders.
> 
> The fact that the Liberal Left has stigmatized "Conservative" in the minds of the general public doesn't mean a damn thing. You've created a boogie-man to do battle against with your "superior" Liberal ideology and you've dressed the false ideology in every odious and undesirable viewpoint your radical noise machine can think of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definitions are irrelevant because you are defining these terms to fit your ideology and worldview and thus have no practical meaning.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think a conservative may be.  It doesn't matter what I think a conservative may be.
> 
> What matters is what people themselves think.  People self-identify.
> 
> And self-identified conservatives are 30%-35% of the electorate.
> 
> empiricism > ideology
Click to expand...


They're not MY definitions, they are THE definitions. 

People do self-identify... I know quite a few Conservatives who have strong Conservative philosophy in everything they believe... they want lower taxes, smaller government, less-intrusive government, border security and jobs.  But IF you ask them if they would identify as "Tea Party" they would say no. It's not because their views are different, it's because "Tea Party" has been stigmatized.  Generally speaking, people will never want to identify with a stigmatized label... that's just human nature.... has nothing to do with what they actually believe or how they think. 

"Conservative" has become stigmatized as well. Not as many people want to say they are "Conservative" because they think it means they have all of these horrible views and opinions the Liberals have dressed the Frankenstein ideology of Conservatism with. So a lot of them will say they are "Independent" or "Moderate" instead.  

The point is, Conservative philosophy is what most people have in America, whether they realize it or not. They may have various ideological beliefs and opinions, it's all rooted in Conservative philosophy. This stands as true until you can show me any kind of poll showing more than 25% are "Liberal" in America. You don't get to attack Conservative philosophy by counting moderates... most of them are Conservatives who aren't ideologues.


----------



## pismoe

thing I hear is that there are even some hip hop songs , raps written about Donald .  Some of these young punks like his style , jets , helicopters and money , money , MONEY .  Heck , Donalds style is better than living in the parents basement and riding a skateboard .  I'll see if I can find one of the vids about the Donald TinyDancer !!


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the President.  And you certainly know he is black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
Click to expand...

You called a grown black man boy. You did it be used you are a fucking racist.  Worse than that, your are a coward who lies, and backs off what you said when challenged.  As much as I abhor racists, lying, cowardly ones like you are worse.  As for lying, you refer to me as old man without having a fucking clue how old I am.


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy hasn't a clue about the things he talks about. What kind of dope would say conservatism is not an ideology. Well, this guy would say that. He doesn't know the meanings of words and is to lazy to find out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've demonstrated how Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Rand Paul is a libertarian conservative and Mike Huckabee is a social conservative... their views on social issues vary greatly... they don't march in lockstep to the same ideology, they share a Conservative philosophy.
> 
> Dopes are people who are too stupid to comprehend what I am saying, which is real easy to understand. And I do indeed know what words mean, the very first and foremost definition of "conservative" defines exactly the political view you call "moderate."
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated that you have no clue what those words mean.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
Click to expand...

You are a racist and you meant it as a racist remark.  Stop lying.


----------



## bodecea

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You called a grown black man boy. You did it be used you are a fucking racist.  Worse than that, your are a coward who lies, and backs off what you said when challenged.  As much as I abhor racists, lying, cowardly ones like you are worse.  As for lying, you refer to me as old man without having a fucking clue how old I am.
Click to expand...

She's just a girl.  Not responsible for equal adult behavior.


----------



## ninja007

Trump put on his pants the same way Hillary does- one leg at a time... common ground.


----------



## Boss

pismoe said:


> thing I hear is that there are even some hip hop songs , raps written about Donald .  Some of these young punks like his style , jets , helicopters and money , money , MONEY .  Heck , Donalds style is better than living in the parents basement and riding a skateboard .  I'll see if I can find one of the vids about the Donald TinyDancer !!


----------



## Boss

paddymurphy said:


> You called a grown black man boy. You did it be used you are a fucking racist.  Worse than that, your are a coward who lies, and backs off what you said when challenged.  As much as I abhor racists, lying, cowardly ones like you are worse.  As for lying, you refer to me as old man without having a fucking clue how old I am.



And you're a little loudmouth piss-ant who thinks someone has given him authority to decide what people mean and think. You are a Class A example of why your fucked-in-the-head Liberal ideology needs to be vanquished from this society forever. If we don't eventually have to put you all down like rabid dogs, I'll be surprised. You can't handle power... even then smallest amount... you go crazy! Next thing you know, you're putting shock collars around our necks so you can zap us when we we look at you the wrong way!


----------



## pismoe

hey thanks Boss , that's the one I meant . As best I can tell its not an insult to the Donald .  Maybe Trump will motivate this young segment of people to vote for him .   'UP like Trump' if I heard it right .


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You called a grown black man boy. You did it be used you are a fucking racist.  Worse than that, your are a coward who lies, and backs off what you said when challenged.  As much as I abhor racists, lying, cowardly ones like you are worse.  As for lying, you refer to me as old man without having a fucking clue how old I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a little loudmouth piss-ant who thinks someone has given him authority to decide what people mean and think. You are a Class A example of why your fucked-in-the-head Liberal ideology needs to be vanquished from this society forever. If we don't eventually have to put you all down like rabid dogs, I'll be surprised. You can't handle power... even then smallest amount... you go crazy! Next thing you know, you're putting shock collars around our necks so you can zap us when we we look at you the wrong way!
Click to expand...

A bitch like you could not put down a poodle.  She meant it as a rascist remark because she is a rascist.  Has been spouting that nonsense here for months.


----------



## Boss

paddymurphy said:


> She meant it as a rascist remark....



You don't know how anybody means anything because you're not them and you're not God. 

You have ZERO authority to decide what people... ANY people... mean. You don't get to decide for ME what she meant. I did not cede that power to you and I never will. If you want to live in a world where you get to decide what people mean and proclaim that to be fact, you need to go find a deserted island and start your country. In this country, your opinion means NOTHING.


----------



## oreo

Jackson said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take issue with the Latinos and immigrants.  I have legal immigrants provide services to me that came over here legally.  They are mad as hell.  They are waiting for their relatives to come...legally.  And all the people who live on the other side of our borders just run across.  It is a daily event.  They are ready to vote for anyone who can and actually will build that wall,  Then perhaps without the influx of illegals, their relatives can come over.  I understand their plight.
Click to expand...



Trump doesn't seem to understand that there are MILLIONS of legal Latino's in this country that VOTE.  They don't vote to close the border.  They don't vote for people who insult their integrity or intelligence.  And they are an enormous voting block in this country.  _Is it going to take you people another 40 years of losing elections to figure this out?

Everyone wants to do something about illegal immigration.  There is no one that doesn't. But for every one of you that are Trump supporters, there are 10 that are inflamed by his remarks.  And let's face it-no candidate can do anything about illegal immigration until they WIN.





_


----------



## pismoe

good , let the 'hispanics' be inflamed , if the 'rinos' lose that's a good thing , imo Oreo .   Trump , Cruz all the way if things go my way Oreo !!      You can have 'yeb' , christy , roobio or 'carly' .


----------



## Boss

oreo said:


> Trump doesn't seem to understand that there are MILLIONS of legal Latino's in this country that VOTE. *They don't vote to close the border.*



Says fucking WHO?    There are legal Latino immigrants waiting for their relatives to come through legal channels while these people violate the laws and come illegally. It's not fair to them, it's not fair to their families. They are legal, they came legally, they followed the law... but when they go to the emergency room with their child's broken arm, they have to wait hours because the ER is log-jammed with illegals. These people are NOT happy about the situation and a change is coming. 

And what the fuck do you mean by "close the border" you insufferable MORON. We don't have an OPEN border with Mexico! The border of our country is very much CLOSED. We have people crossing our CLOSED border in violation of our LAW! *THAT IS THE PROBLEM!*


----------



## Boss

pismoe said:


> good , let the 'hispanics' be inflamed



Trump leads all GOP candidates with Latino voters with a commanding 34%
(Including Rubio and Cruz, the actual Latinos in the race.)


----------



## Dante

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You called a grown black man boy..
Click to expand...


they did?

so fucking what?

grow some balls. getting offended so easily is tiring to witness


----------



## Dante

ninja007 said:


> Trump put on his pants the same way Hillary does- one leg at a time... common ground.



are you of that? Trump has a team of 25 people do his hair, imagine what he has putting his pants  on


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
Click to expand...


Pssssh: it's always about *context*. I know, I know, that's a concept that goes right over Righties' heads...


----------



## Statistikhengst

tinydancer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is doing very well currently , who knows what the future brings .  I'm happy that Trump is in the mix with his ideas .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is running a PR and not an election campaign so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's running a carnival sideshow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beats the hell out of Jeb Bush's campaign doesn't it now. Old Jeb just isn't Mr. Excitement is he?
> 
> Trump is ECW.  Chair shots. Top ropes. Rage in the cage. Hell in the cell. The Donald has brought the furniture baby!
> 
> Bush is the Scout Leader explaining safety tips for roasting marshmallows.
Click to expand...



Ok, that WAS funny. Gee, you seem to have missed this posting:

HOLY TOLEDO New poll has Trump at 32 WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was that perhaps too much information for you?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> good , let the 'hispanics' be inflamed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump leads all GOP candidates with Latino voters with a commanding 34%
> (Including Rubio and Cruz, the actual Latinos in the race.)
Click to expand...



In REPUBLICAN polling.
Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.

Are you having difficulty understanding this? Why yes, I think you are!


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.



This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes. 

Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do. 

I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
Click to expand...



What we DO know in Latino polling, now from 2 organizations, is that the GOP is getting crushed in the Latino vote.

Math triumphs over propaganda every time.

And when Hillary wins and wins big in 2016 and captures upwards of 80% of the Latino vote, I am going to come back to this posting of yours, which is now bookmarked!


----------



## L.K.Eder

SassyIrishLass said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from the Midwest, the term boy doesn't necessarily mean black or race. You all need to stop seeing "racists" at every turn. It's stupid...and worn out
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
Click to expand...


damn, you are dumb.

btw, the appeal court reversed its ruling.


----------



## JimH52

oreo said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to continue to surge as long as he keeps hitting on the issues such as illegals. I have to give him credit on that stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already hurt the Republican party with his outrageous comments regarding immigration.  We have millions of Latino's in this country that are eligible voters, that are very offended by Trump's comments.  The other night what he couldn't answer he just made up.
> 
> He's a joke, he is just doing this for notoriety and entertainment. That's what Trump is about--entertainment.  He admitted to buying politicians on both sides of the isle.  He's got the money to buy polling data too.
> 
> He knows you're all angry--and he's playing you like a fiddle--until he tires of it and drops out of this race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take issue with the Latinos and immigrants.  I have legal immigrants provide services to me that came over here legally.  They are mad as hell.  They are waiting for their relatives to come...legally.  And all the people who live on the other side of our borders just run across.  It is a daily event.  They are ready to vote for anyone who can and actually will build that wall,  Then perhaps without the influx of illegals, their relatives can come over.  I understand their plight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump doesn't seem to understand that there are MILLIONS of legal Latino's in this country that VOTE.  They don't vote to close the border.  They don't vote for people who insult their integrity or intelligence.  And they are an enormous voting block in this country.  _Is it going to take you people another 40 years of losing elections to figure this out?
> 
> Everyone wants to do something about illegal immigration.  There is no one that doesn't. But for every one of you that are Trump supporters, there are 10 that are inflamed by his remarks.  And let's face it-no candidate can do anything about illegal immigration until they WIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Haven't you heard?  Trump is going to "win the women's vote" and he is going to "win the Hispanic vote."  Because he can create jobs for everyone!

Oh, and he also said "I cherish women!"....when they aren't bleeding from "wherever."


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we only have your word for that and you lie effortlessly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a racist and you meant it as a racist remark.  Stop lying.
Click to expand...


GFY you tired old puke


----------



## Statistikhengst

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a racist and you meant it as a racist remark.  Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY you tired old puke
Click to expand...



I see you are just as angry today as you were yesterday.

Do you have the ability to debate an issue without attacking the person, or is your ODS simply incurable?


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> good , let the 'hispanics' be inflamed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump leads all GOP candidates with Latino voters with a commanding 34%
> (Including Rubio and Cruz, the actual Latinos in the race.)
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
Click to expand...


Bookmarked.


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> good , let the 'hispanics' be inflamed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump leads all GOP candidates with Latino voters with a commanding 34%
> (Including Rubio and Cruz, the actual Latinos in the race.)
Click to expand...

So, 34% of the tiny # of Latinos who are Republicans means what in the fall of 2016?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
Click to expand...


really 

--LOL


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> In and of itself, this spectacle may very well convince a lot of voters that conservatives are not fit to govern, and conservatives will have nobody to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how MOST of the voters ARE Conservative, I don't see it convincing them they aren't fit to govern.... I DO see it telling liberals they can't govern because they lost their elections and have to go home... they won't be convinced they aren't fit to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voters aren't conservatives.
> 
> Conservatives generally account for 30%-35% of voters.
> 
> The Conservative Presidential Vote US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Most voters ARE conservative. They are not necessarily ideologues (i.e.; social cons, libertarians) but their philosophy is Conservative.  Again-- Billy Jeff Clinton was a Conservative Liberal. Hillary Clinton ran her last campaign for president as a Conservative Liberal. She is currently the "Conservative" alternative to Bernie Sanders.
> 
> The fact that the Liberal Left has stigmatized "Conservative" in the minds of the general public doesn't mean a damn thing. You've created a boogie-man to do battle against with your "superior" Liberal ideology and you've dressed the false ideology in every odious and undesirable viewpoint your radical noise machine can think of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definitions are irrelevant because you are defining these terms to fit your ideology and worldview and thus have no practical meaning.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think a conservative may be.  It doesn't matter what I think a conservative may be.
> 
> What matters is what people themselves think.  People self-identify.
> 
> And self-identified conservatives are 30%-35% of the electorate.
> 
> empiricism > ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not MY definitions, they are THE definitions.
> 
> People do self-identify... I know quite a few Conservatives who have strong Conservative philosophy in everything they believe... they want lower taxes, smaller government, less-intrusive government, border security and jobs.  But IF you ask them if they would identify as "Tea Party" they would say no. It's not because their views are different, it's because "Tea Party" has been stigmatized.  Generally speaking, people will never want to identify with a stigmatized label... that's just human nature.... has nothing to do with what they actually believe or how they think.
> 
> "Conservative" has become stigmatized as well. Not as many people want to say they are "Conservative" because they think it means they have all of these horrible views and opinions the Liberals have dressed the Frankenstein ideology of Conservatism with. So a lot of them will say they are "Independent" or "Moderate" instead.
> 
> The point is, Conservative philosophy is what most people have in America, whether they realize it or not. They may have various ideological beliefs and opinions, it's all rooted in Conservative philosophy. This stands as true until you can show me any kind of poll showing more than 25% are "Liberal" in America. You don't get to attack Conservative philosophy by counting moderates... most of them are Conservatives who aren't ideologues.
Click to expand...


"Liberal" is a lot more stigmatized than "conservative."

Most moderates agree with some conservative principles and they agree with some liberal principles. That's why they are moderates. Typically, moderates are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But simply because they are fiscally conservative doesn't mean you label them as a "conservative" any more than labeling them a "liberal" because they are socially liberal. 

What matters is how people identify themselves. If people identify themselves as moderates, they aren't going to care too much about stigmatized labels, whether that's conservative or liberal. 

For the Republican Party, they rarely win self-identified moderates, but they almost never win if they lose the moderate vote badly. And there are consistently more self-identified moderates voting than conservatives, and way more than liberals. So if Republicans alienate moderates, they lose. Full stop.


----------



## Toro

jon_berzerk said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


No. 

But I do have an election prediction thread that I will link your quote to later, simply because it's the most ridiculous prediction yet. And on this board, that's saying something.


----------



## Mac1958

Toro said:


> So if Republicans alienate moderates, they lose. Full stop.


Evidently, the conservatives disagree with you.

They have convinced themselves that their base is enough, that they don't need moderate Republicans (RINOs), moderates or independents.

Okay, good luck with that, gang.

.


----------



## Jackson

I feel the Independents generally are former Republican party members and a few Democrats that abandoned their party.  The philosophy of both of these are that they are disappointed or angered at the direction their party and the country is going.

With the shake up in the Republican party, I can see more Independents moving in that direction for the next election.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Toro said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But I do have an election prediction thread that I will link your quote to later, simply because it's the most ridiculous prediction yet. And on this board, that's saying something.
Click to expand...



--LOL


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, old fool, point out a lie. I seem to recall you tried this once before and got your bell rang. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> You lied when you said your use of the word "boy" was not racial.  And your claim to have rung my bell is another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an annoying old man, boy is not always racial, because YOU claim it is means little. stop being an unproductive asshole and stay on topic, fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, well, well it seems even the courts agree with me. I win!!!!!!
> 
> *Appeals Court: Call Black Guys ‘Boy’ All You Want, It’s Not Racist*
> 
> 
> Most everyone agrees that, after Barack Obama was elected, _almost_ all racism in America ended. But there’s still a little racism around, if you can find it! Still, you will need to establish a consensus of white people before you can _truly_ deem someone’s actions to be motivated by racial animus. Take, for instance, the case of an African-American chicken plant employee who started with a job hanging live chickens onto hooks and worked his way up to the bottom rungs of management, then got passed over for promotion in favor of two white guys by a white boss who called him “boy.” Would you say that maybe there was some racism at play here? Two overwhelmingly white juries in Alabama did, as did John Roberts’ Supreme Court! Thank goodness the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is here to stop all this race-card playing.
> 
> Did you know that “boy” is just a totally neutral word, with no racial connotations whatsoever? Every single earnest movie about racism made in the 1980s that you ever watched was a dirty lie.
> 
> Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
> 
> “The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
> …
> The Supreme Court unanimously reversed [an earlier] decision, suggesting that the real world was the right modifier. ‘The speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage,’ the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> 
> Read more at Appeals Court Call Black Guys Boy All You Want It s Not Racist - Wonkette
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a racist and you meant it as a racist remark.  Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY you tired old puke
Click to expand...

Are you bleeding from your eyes or your "wherever?"


----------



## pismoe

thing is that a lot of YOU people , gop , rinos want a republican president , me , heck , I don't care .   Pander to those that identify as 'hispanics' rather than as American for their votes doesn't make sense to me .


----------



## Skylar

Toro said:


> Your definitions are irrelevant because you are defining these terms to fit your ideology and worldview and thus have no practical meaning.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think a conservative may be.  It doesn't matter what I think a conservative may be
> 
> What matters is what people themselves think.  People self-identify.
> 
> And self-identified conservatives are 30%-35% of the electorate.



Exactly. Boss offers his personal opinion as to what conservatism is. And then insists that is what everyone else recognizes conservatism as. 

Nope.


----------



## Skylar

Mac1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if Republicans alienate moderates, they lose. Full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, the conservatives disagree with you.
> 
> They have convinced themselves that their base is enough, that they don't need moderate Republicans (RINOs), moderates or independents.
> 
> Okay, good luck with that, gang.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yup. Despite overwhelming, overlapping sources that contradict them, these silly bastards insist that most of the nation thinks like they do.

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Slyhunter

pismoe said:


> thing is that a lot of YOU people , gop , rinos want a republican president , me , heck , I don't care .   Pander to those that identify as 'hispanics' rather than as American for their votes doesn't make sense to me .


Ill take a fiscal conservative fuck that social shit.


----------



## Skylar

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
Click to expand...


Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Skylar said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
Click to expand...



If Boss is anything like the feral fake rabid rabbi rabbit, he will claim victory even if his prediction doesn't come true...


----------



## Skylar

Statistikhengst said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Boss is anything like the feral fake rabid rabbi rabbit, he will claim victory even if his prediction doesn't come true...
Click to expand...


Hey, when you have a perfect(*) record of accuracy, why not laud it?










(*) ignoring all misses, mistakes, and false predictions of course.


----------



## pismoe

the 'bush' and all other MODERATE 'rinos' are the guys pandering to 'hispanics'  , muslims , and every other minority group .  Well , same thing for the dems and they are better at the pandering .   I'll take Cruz , Trump or whoever I perceive as not pandering Slyhunter .   Course , if it a 'rino' nominee , well , I already have my plans .


----------



## Skylar

pismoe said:


> the 'bush' and all other MODERATE 'rinos' are the guys pandering to 'hispanics'  , muslims , and every other minority group .  Well , same thing for the dems and they are better at the pandering .   I'll take Cruz , Trump or whoever I perceive as not pandering Slyhunter .   Course , if it a 'rino' nominee , well , I already have my plans .



Yeah, who needs women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, liberals, moderates, or 'RINO's when you're running as a 'true conservative'. 

That 'big tent' is looking more like a mid sized umbrella.


----------



## paddymurphy

pismoe said:


> the 'bush' and all other MODERATE 'rinos' are the guys pandering to 'hispanics'  , muslims , and every other minority group .  Well , same thing for the dems and they are better at the pandering .   I'll take Cruz , Trump or whoever I perceive as not pandering Slyhunter .   Course , if it a 'rino' nominee , well , I already have my plans .


Better than pandering to the know nothing tea party wingnuts.


----------



## pismoe

well , hey  , all I can do is oppose you guys in type plus my vote .  Like I say , I'll vote the real deal panderer rather than a pandering 'rino' .  Hopefully that costs you 'rino' moderate types some money .    That really my only point !!


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> If Boss is anything like the feral fake rabid rabbi rabbit, he will claim victory even if his prediction doesn't come true...



Nope... that's why I told him to bookmark it so he could throw it back in my face if it doesn't come true. Then, I admitted I could be wrong... I still say, I could be wrong... totally wrong! It's a fucking *BOLD* prediction. I've been wrong before and I'm not too proud to admit it. 

I base my prediction on several things. First, the reality of Trump winning the GOP nomination. That hasn't happened yet. So before we can even get to the scenario where my prediction comes into play, Trump will have to convince most Republican voters to make him the candidate. Second, that he is running against Hillary in the general... also not yet a reality. 

BUT... under that scenario, I predicted Trump would carry the black and Latino vote. My reasoning is simple: Hillary is NOT Barack Obama. The Pant Suit gives off a very racist vibe. Trump appeals to blacks and minorities who want to emulate his success. He embraces pop culture and has a very wide spectrum of friends who aren't "old white people." 

I'll say it again... I could be totally wrong in my prediction... I probably will be.  But I will bet you that when all is said and done, Trump (if he wins the GOP) will do better with blacks and Latinos than any GOP candidate in modern history.


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Boss is anything like the feral fake rabid rabbi rabbit, he will claim victory even if his prediction doesn't come true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... that's why I told him to bookmark it so he could throw it back in my face if it doesn't come true. Then, I admitted I could be wrong... I still say, I could be wrong... totally wrong! It's a fucking *BOLD* prediction. I've been wrong before and I'm not too proud to admit it.
> 
> I base my prediction on several things. First, the reality of Trump winning the GOP nomination. That hasn't happened yet. So before we can even get to the scenario where my prediction comes into play, Trump will have to convince most Republican voters to make him the candidate. Second, that he is running against Hillary in the general... also not yet a reality.
> 
> BUT... under that scenario, I predicted Trump would carry the black and Latino vote. My reasoning is simple: Hillary is NOT Barack Obama. The Pant Suit gives off a very racist vibe. Trump appeals to blacks and minorities who want to emulate his success. He embraces pop culture and has a very wide spectrum of friends who aren't "old white people."
> 
> I'll say it again... I could be totally wrong in my prediction... I probably will be.  But I will bet you that when all is said and done, Trump (if he wins the GOP) will do better with blacks and Latinos than any GOP candidate in modern history.
Click to expand...

How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.

"A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."

The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post


----------



## pismoe

maybe they will wake up Paddy , what is it , 16 months to go ??


----------



## pismoe

heck , think they said that  'Reagan' had no chance , same for others . Yet we got Mr. Reagan


----------



## paddymurphy

pismoe said:


> maybe they will wake up Pddy , what is it , 16 months to go ??


This happens about every twenty years or so.  Strom Thurmond in the late 40's; G. Wallace in 68; John Anderson in 76; and, everybody's favorite, Ross Perot.  And each of those were not saddled with the baggage that Trump brings.


----------



## paddymurphy

pismoe said:


> heck , think they said that  'Reagan' had no chance , same for others . Yet we got Mr. Reagan


No.  I don't think Reagan was ever dismissed like that.  He gave Ford a run in 1976.  He was discussed as a possible Republican candidate as soon as he was elected governor.


----------



## pismoe

see what happens I guess .  Right now I approve of Trump , Cruz , maybe Carson but never any one of the others .


----------



## paddymurphy

Here s The Lowdown On Who Supports Donald Trump

The lowdown?  Trump is supported by stupid, uneducated white men.


----------



## paddymurphy

pismoe said:


> see what happens I guess .  Right now I approve of Trump , Cruz , maybe Carson but never any one of the others .


And you named the three candidates most unfit for the office.


----------



## JimH52

pismoe said:


> the 'bush' and all other MODERATE 'rinos' are the guys pandering to 'hispanics'  , muslims , and every other minority group .  Well , same thing for the dems and they are better at the pandering .   I'll take Cruz , Trump or whoever I perceive as not pandering Slyhunter .   Course , if it a 'rino' nominee , well , I already have my plans .



Moving?


----------



## pismoe

you get a couple 'funny' awards on your posts 358 - 359  Paddy !!


----------



## Boss

paddymurphy said:


> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post



First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it! 

More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *


----------



## pismoe

naw , not moving , looking to create havoc and financial mayhem amongst the moderate 'rino' types 'Jim' .   Heck , Hilary will be giving away money for FREE , free , free tuitions at colleges , universities , beauty schools and college loan forgiveness as she works on a plan for 'reparations' to 150 year old 'slaves' that are still waiting for reparations .   Yep , financial mayhem for the moderates that are only interested in the economy and I'm going to love seeing the tears and hearing the wails as their pockets are emptied .


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago..
Click to expand...


First off, horseshit. The page links to an article about the poll. With a link to the poll right there in the first paragraph. With its methodology laid out in clear English. The poll was taken from July 16th through the 19th. Less than a month ago.

Second, does it matter what methodology was used? If a poll says anything you don't like, you'll ignore it. If a poll says what you believe, you don't question it. Even if the poll was conducted completely online, you'd give it a pass.....but only if it said what you wanted.

Your sole basis of credibility for *any* source....is that it say what you already believe.

And you'll ignore anything you don't want to believe. But your willful ignorance and self delusion really has nothing to do with the rest of us.



> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right? *....MORON! *


Dude, you *just* lauded polling yesterday when you said they showed Trump leading in the race.



> Latest polling shows he leads all GOP candidates for the Latino vote with 34%... beating both Cruz and Rubio, the two actual Latinos in the race. So apparently, they weren't TOO offended.
> 
> Boss
> Post 129
> HOLY TOLEDO New poll has Trump at 32 WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Now you're condemning polling as unreliable. Gee, what a difference a day makes.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Second, does it matter what methodology was used? *If a poll says anything you don't like, you'll ignore it. If a poll says what you believe, you don't question it.* Even if the poll was conducted completely online, you'd give it a pass.....but only if it said what you wanted.
> 
> *Your sole basis of credibility for *any* source....is that it say what you already believe.*
> 
> *And you'll ignore anything you don't want to believe. *But your willful ignorance and self delusion really has nothing to do with the rest of us.



WOW... that sounds *remarkably* like someone else I know! 

Yep... *Methodology* means everything in any poll... figured you'd know this. 

A poll of 1000 is not the *entire nation...* so the claim that "60% of *the nation* say they wouldn't vote for Trump" is an outright fraudulent *LIE* based on the polling data of 1000 people. 

Now you want to call into question my comments in another thread where someone claimed Trump had pissed off Latinos with his Mexican comments and they'd never vote for him... I pointed out that he leads all other GOP candidates with the Latino vote, including the two Latinos. That's pretty remarkable seeing how he has pissed them all off and they're never going to vote for him... dontchya think?


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, does it matter what methodology was used? *If a poll says anything you don't like, you'll ignore it. If a poll says what you believe, you don't question it.* Even if the poll was conducted completely online, you'd give it a pass.....but only if it said what you wanted.
> 
> *Your sole basis of credibility for *any* source....is that it say what you already believe.*
> 
> *And you'll ignore anything you don't want to believe. *But your willful ignorance and self delusion really has nothing to do with the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW... that sounds *remarkably* like someone else I know!
> 
> Yep... *Methodology* means everything in any poll... figured you'd know this.
Click to expand...


Oh, I know that methodology is important.* I'm questioning if it would matter to you. *As you never bring up methodology if the polls show good news for Trump.



> Latest polling shows he leads all GOP candidates for the Latino vote with 34%... beating both Cruz and Rubio, the two actual Latinos in the race. So apparently, they weren't TOO offended.
> 
> Boss
> Post 129
> HOLY TOLEDO New poll has Trump at 32 WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



*This was just yesterday. *Where are you inquiries about methodology? Where were your complaints that asking only 1000 people a question doesn't work? And you just claimed that Latinos weren't too offended by Trump based on the 'latest polls'.

Yet today less than a day later, when a poll says something you don't like, you reject it, start demanding methodology explanations (which you willfully refused to look at despite being provided to you) and dismiss representative polling.

*So.....what was different yesterday when you lauded the 'latest polls' for Trump? *Nothing. Yesterday's poll just said what you wanted to hear. So you didn't question anything and repeated it.

*Your sole basis of credibility is that something agree with you.* Any source that doesn't ape what you already believe is ignored. Um, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Because you're living it.


----------



## Skylar

Oh, and you lied your ass off. The page linked to story on the poll with a direct link to the PDF of the poll (including methodoly) in the very first paragraph. With the poll being a few weeks ago. Not a few months ago.

You literally refused to look at the poll. And then laughably insisted that because you REFUSE to look at its methodology, that the poll can't be trusted.

Literally.

You're arguing your own ignorance.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> First off, horseshit. The page links to an article about the poll. With a link to the poll right there in the first paragraph. With its methodology laid out in clear English. The poll was taken from July 16th through the 19th. Less than a month ago.



The link posted above goes to the Washington Post article about the poll which says "60% of the nation won't vote for Trump." 

The first paragraph in THAT story is: 

For all of the apparent good news for Donald Trump in the new *Washington Post/ABC News poll* -- up by 11 points, big surges in several constituencies -- there is a thread of bad news. It's the same thing that observers have pointed to for months, the kill switch on his candidacy.

When I click the link to what is *supposed to be the poll...* it takes me to another *article about Trump* surging in the polls and how that was _because the polls were late and people hadn't gotten word of Trumps comments... and oh, when word gets out... it's going to tank big time... oh yes... you just wait and see people!_  It's a couple of pages of smear and jeer on Trump... no mention of the "60% poll" or it's methodology whatsoever... BUT... *another LINK* which supposedly takes you to the poll *again!*  ...As I said, I bit once... I didn't bite the second time... you obviously did and found the methodology. 

Hooray for you!  Did the journalists poll the entire fucking nation? If not...


----------



## aris2chat

Love him or hate him.........
Did you catch the monologue intro to the five on fox this afternoon.  Trump is entertaining not just what he says, but fodder for every news caster, talking head and comedian out there.

Loving his audacity and outspokenness does not qualify him for the office or President of the United States of America.

He is presenting more of a spoiler that a serious candidate for the highest office in the country and major leader of the free world.

I don't think the founding fathers would be pleased to have the presidency become a joke.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, horseshit. The page links to an article about the poll. With a link to the poll right there in the first paragraph. With its methodology laid out in clear English. The poll was taken from July 16th through the 19th. Less than a month ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link posted above goes to the Washington Post article about the poll which says "60% of the nation won't vote for Trump."
> 
> The first paragraph in THAT story is:
> 
> For all of the apparent good news for Donald Trump in the new *Washington Post/ABC News poll* -- up by 11 points, big surges in several constituencies -- there is a thread of bad news. It's the same thing that observers have pointed to for months, the kill switch on his candidacy.
> 
> When I click the link to what is *supposed to be the poll...* it takes me to another *article about Trump* surging in the polls and how that was _because the polls were late and people hadn't gotten word of Trumps comments... and oh, when word gets out... it's going to tank big time... oh yes... you just wait and see people!_  It's a couple of pages of smear and jeer on Trump... no mention of the "60% poll" or it's methodology whatsoever... BUT... *another LINK* which supposedly takes you to the poll *again!*  ...As I said, I bit once... I didn't bite the second time... you obviously did and found the methodology.
> 
> Hooray for you!  Did the journalists poll the entire fucking nation? If not...
Click to expand...


Dude....you're completely confounded by TWO links. One to an article on the poll...and one to the poll itself? Two links is all it takes to completely shut you down?

And of course if you click on the second link......there's the poll

Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post

Every question you asked, answered. Every specific of methodology provided. And yet in another helpless spasm of willful ignorance *you refused to look at the poll. *And then argued that because you refused to look at it, it can't be trusted.

You couldn't even get the date right, insisting that the poll was from a few months ago when in reality, it was from a few weeks ago. You're not only wrong, you're arguing that the credibility of other sources is based on YOUR ignorance.

Laughing...um, it isn't.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Hooray for you!  Did the journalists poll the entire fucking nation? If not...



Huh....so did the polls you were lauding just yesterday poll all Latinos?



> Latest polling shows he leads all GOP candidates for the Latino vote with 34%... beating both Cruz and Rubio, the two actual Latinos in the race. So apparently, they weren't TOO offended.
> 
> Boss
> Post 129
> HOLY TOLEDO New poll has Trump at 32 WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Or is polling only suspect when they disagree with you? Because you obviously don't have a problem with polling if it shows Trump ahead.

So did your standards change from yesterday? Or do your standards just not apply to you?

Oh, and to just add to your heaping cache of bullshit, I think you mixed up favorability with voting. As the only 'latest poll' that shows Trump with 34% of anything with Latinos....shows he has a 34% favorability rating.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

And the same poll shows Trump with a 59% unfavorability rating with Latinos. So no, it doesn't look they forgave him. 

Favorability doesn't measure who the respondant would vote for. As you can have a favorable view of any number of candidates. Which you either knew and blatantly misrepresented. Or didn't know....and just made shit up as you went along.

Oh....and the PPP Poll you lauded.....had 1087 people and was conducted 2 DAYS after the ABC/Washinvgton post poll you dismissed as too old.

Does that extra 87 people make the difference? Or do you just have no standards whatsoever save that a source must agree with you?


----------



## Statistikhengst

paddymurphy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe they will wake up Pddy , what is it , 16 months to go ??
> 
> 
> 
> This happens about every twenty years or so.  Strom Thurmond in the late 40's; G. Wallace in 68; John Anderson in 76; and, everybody's favorite, Ross Perot.  And each of those were not saddled with the baggage that Trump brings.
Click to expand...


Anderson in '80, not '76.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
Click to expand...



Here you go:

Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post

You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.

WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.

But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.


----------



## Boss

aris2chat said:


> Love him or hate him.........
> Did you catch the monologue intro to the five on fox this afternoon.  Trump is entertaining not just what he says, but fodder for every news caster, talking head and comedian out there.
> 
> Loving his audacity and outspokenness does not qualify him for the office or President of the United States of America.
> 
> He is presenting more of a spoiler that a serious candidate for the highest office in the country and major leader of the free world.
> 
> *I don't think the founding fathers would be pleased to have the presidency become a joke.*



I think that ship sailed a LONG time ago!  We currently have the biggest JOKE of a president we've ever had... and running to replace him... the biggest JOKE of a Secretary of State we ever had! 

I also disagree with you... I think the founders, especially Jefferson, would be _*extremely proud*_ that _*We The People*_ rejected career politicians and hackish party loyalists to elect a real _"man of the people"_ from the citizenry. One of their BIG fears was political factions. Exactly the kind of gridlocked in-fighting we currently see in Congress. 

Hey... I'll be the first to say, I don't know if Trump is the right man to be president. Time will tell. But he certainly has some impressive leadership credentials and fortitude when it comes to handling problems. He doesn't back down and run away... he doesn't FOLLOW.  

If you want to think he is running as a "spoiler candidate" so be it... he leads every major national poll for the GOP nomination at this time. We keep on hearing from the Left and Establishment GOP that Trump is DONE... it's OVER... Will he run 3rd party?   I think this is funny stuff being said about the guy who is clearly in the lead to win the race. Doesn't he have to lose first? 

I LOVED his 'caveat' on the pledge question at the debates.... *"If I win the GOP nomination, I promise I won't run 3rd party!"*


----------



## Skylar

Statistikhengst said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
Click to expand...


But is it to Boss? Just yesterday B cited as the 'latest polls' that Trump had 34% of the Latino vote 

That's horseshit. But lets look into it. The only 'latest' poll with 34% of Latinos thinking anything about Trump is a PPP poll on favorability. Which showed he had 34% favorability among Latinos and 59% unfavorability.

And that poll was from July 21st. Just 2 days after the 'too old' poll. To Boss, these are the 'latest' polls.


----------



## Slyhunter

Skylar said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
Click to expand...

He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.


----------



## Slyhunter

Statistikhengst said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.
> 
> WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
Click to expand...

The next poll will be even better. This is Trumps to screw up. As long as he remains serious about running the voters will vote for him.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Slyhunter said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.
> 
> WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The next poll will be even better. This is Trumps to screw up. As long as he remains serious about running the voters will vote for him.
Click to expand...



Yes, indeed, it will. For Hillary.

Thanks.


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.
> 
> WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
Click to expand...


Oh okay.... So I have to know the combination of click-throughs of smear stories about Trump in order to find their methodology!  Because... well, it's important that I be inundated with more propaganda and smear before I find the information I am looking for and expecting to find at the misleading link. 

The "Poll" in question, by the way... is the poll where he jumped 11% after his McCain comments.... something that was supposed to have tanked his candidacy according to WAPO.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Slyhunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
Click to expand...



Uhm, no.

Cruz is mired at about 5%.

32% + 5% does not make 45%.

Math is not your strong-suit, eh?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.
> 
> WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh okay.... So I have to know the combination of click-throughs of smear stories about Trump in order to find their methodology!  Because... well, it's important that I be inundated with more propaganda and smear before I find the information I am looking for and expecting to find at the misleading link.
> 
> The "Poll" in question, by the way... is the poll where he jumped 11% after his McCain comments.... something that was supposed to have tanked his candidacy according to WAPO.
Click to expand...



Well, actually, you just have to learn to read and comprehend like an adult BEFORE spouting off at the mouth like a little brat.

Alles klar?


----------



## Camp

Slyhunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "if Trump doesn't screw this up..." ?


----------



## Skylar

Slyhunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
Click to expand...



Really? Because Rasmusssen put him at 17% just yesterday, down 9 points from his pre-debate polling.

Has The Donald Peaked - Rasmussen Reports 

Is Rasmussen inaccurate? If so, why?


----------



## Slyhunter

Statistikhengst said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no.
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 32% + 5% does not make 45%.
> 
> Math is not your strong-suit, eh?
Click to expand...

Your problem is you're using basic math while I'm using Calculus.


----------



## Slyhunter

Camp said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> In REPUBLICAN polling.
> Republican Latinos are a drop in the bucket in Republican polling and an even smaller drop within the Latino voting group itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean "if Trump doesn't screw this up..." ?
Click to expand...

Until he puts some money into this it's hard to take him seriously. This may be all a game to him.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.
> 
> WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh okay.... So I have to know the combination of click-throughs of smear stories about Trump in order to find their methodology!
Click to expand...


And by combination, you mean two links.

Two. One to a story on the poll. One to the poll itself in the first paragraph.

Doesn't take much to throw you, does it? How is it I and every other person found it in seconds but you refused to do so?

You were saying about 'morons'?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> Washington Post-ABC News poll July 16-19 2015 - The Washington Post
> 
> You just had to be smart enough to know to click on the poll link itself in the second link.
> 
> WAPO usually does more than one story about a poll, but it always releases the complete poll. You just have to actually read some, you know, like an adult.
> 
> But, that being said, the poll is now old. The next one will likely look even worse for the Don.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh okay.... So I have to know the combination of click-throughs of smear stories about Trump in order to find their methodology!  Because... well, it's important that I be inundated with more propaganda and smear before I find the information I am looking for and expecting to find at the misleading link.
> 
> The "Poll" in question, by the way... is the poll where he jumped 11% after his McCain comments.... something that was supposed to have tanked his candidacy according to WAPO.
Click to expand...


I've read a couple of articles about Trump being both the top Republican candidate among Republican likely voters and the most disliked.  It makes sense.  He's controversial, bombastic, non-PC, however you want to describe it.  He says things which elicit reactions both positive and negative.  

I would think that trait is both the most important factor in his current popularity and the thing most likely to prevent him from becoming president or even getting the Republican nomination.

Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate.  However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate.  Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?

Of course, all of this is really little more than silly speculation.  The election is still far, far away.  Talking about who will be a serious contender for president at this point is like picking a Super Bowl winner today.  Sure, you might get lucky, and some choices are stronger than others, but no one knows what might change between now and the end of the race.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The thing that's gonna sink Trump with the GOP happened today.

He said he's against abortion, but thinks that Planned Parenthood is a good thing.

The Strange New Love-Fest Between Donald Trump and Planned Parenthood - Bloomberg Politics


----------



## Camp

Slyhunter said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a difficult concept for you but people (even Latinos) change their minds on party all the time. They are not all sheep like you who will follow the Big D over any waterfall. Truth is, we simply don't know how many Republican Latinos will vote this time... half the country never votes.
> 
> Nevertheless... It's beyond ridiculous that you want to think we should expect Trump to be winning Democrat Latino votes during his Republican primary race. And another thing... Conservatives don't pander to special interests... all Americans are equal. They don't stereotype individuals and put them in a box and say..._ we gotta say this and that for THOSE kind of people..._ That's what racist bigoted dividers like YOU do.
> 
> I'll make a bold prediction right here and now... IF Trump WINS the GOP nomination, he will carry both the Latino and Black vote against Hillary. Bookmark the post so you can throw it in my face if I am wrong... I don't mind admitting I could be wrong... but I bet it's much closer than in any recent election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean "if Trump doesn't screw this up..." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until he puts some money into this it's hard to take him seriously. This may be all a game to him.
Click to expand...

I think Trump has screwed up on several occasions already. In fact, he seems to have a pattern of making blunders. This is not a good sign for a Presidential contender.  People are forgiving and will give second chances and all of that, but Trump seems to be out of his comfort zone. At some point he is going to have to change that hustler con man kind of conversational speech he is so dependent on. People are already tired of his diatribes about how great he is and how he is the best at everything and how he is going to save the world.


----------



## Skylar

Camp said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bookmarked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean "if Trump doesn't screw this up..." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until he puts some money into this it's hard to take him seriously. This may be all a game to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Trump has screwed up on several occasions already. In fact, he seems to have a pattern of making blunders. This is not a good sign for a Presidential contender.  People are forgiving and will give second chances and all of that, but Trump seems to be out of his comfort zone. At some point he is going to have to change that hustler con man kind of conversational speech he is so dependent on. People are already tired of his diatribes about how great he is and how he is the best at everything and how he is going to save the world.
Click to expand...


His campaign director quiting and reducing his entire campaign staff to 2?

Oh, nothing to worry about there.


----------



## Slyhunter

ABikerSailor said:


> The thing that's gonna sink Trump with the GOP happened today.
> 
> He said he's against abortion, but thinks that Planned Parenthood is a good thing.
> 
> The Strange New Love-Fest Between Donald Trump and Planned Parenthood - Bloomberg Politics


Me too, abort those black babies. He's still got my vote


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you can predict a candidate that nearly half of Republicans say they will never vote for can win the nomination is beyond all rational understanding.
> 
> "A lot of voters -- 61 percent of them, in fact -- say they would _never_ consider voting for him for president. And 39 percent of the vote is not enough to be elected president. The closest recent winner to that figure was Bill Clinton in 1992, who got 43 percent of the vote."
> 
> The bad news for Trump More than 60 percent of the country wouldn t consider voting for him. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am finding NO information at your link as to the nature of the survey, who they polled, how many were polled, whether it was by phone, etc.  The link in the story which references the poll takes you to yet another hit piece on Trump's McCain comments and cites yet another poll taken months ago... I didn't click that link. It is obvious to me that Washington Post is attempting to spin his ever-increasing poll numbers into a negative, to damage his campaign. I expect nothing less from Washington Post but it is very interesting... You all claim to WANT a Trump vs. Hillary match-up... but you're sure not ACTING like it!
> 
> More than 60% of the country? Really? Based on a poll of what, 1,000 people? We don't know... but Washington Post said it so it MUST be true, right?  *....MORON! *
Click to expand...

I get it "boss". You are just too  stupid to understand how polling works. Every fucking poll is of a sample. And it is not my problem you are too much of an idiot to know how to get to the actual poll which tells you the all the information your tiny brain cannot find. I am sure that you cite to polls whose results you like. Though, there no polls that give Trump any chance to win the notation. Even in the ones where he is polling best, the rest of the results show that most of those picking other candidates will never vote Donnie.


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> Cruz is mired at about 5%.



Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
Click to expand...



His aggregate is right around 5%.

Do you understand what aggregate means?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss


----------



## Statistikhengst

Skylar said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its kind of an empty challenge. As I see it really unlikely that Trump gets the nomination.
> 
> 
> 
> He's got 32% of the vote out of 17 candidates. If Cruz bows out I bet that'll make it to 45% of the vote. If Trump doesn't screw this up, he'll be the next President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean "if Trump doesn't screw this up..." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until he puts some money into this it's hard to take him seriously. This may be all a game to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Trump has screwed up on several occasions already. In fact, he seems to have a pattern of making blunders. This is not a good sign for a Presidential contender.  People are forgiving and will give second chances and all of that, but Trump seems to be out of his comfort zone. At some point he is going to have to change that hustler con man kind of conversational speech he is so dependent on. People are already tired of his diatribes about how great he is and how he is the best at everything and how he is going to save the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His campaign director quiting and reducing his entire campaign staff to 2?
> 
> Oh, nothing to worry about there.
Click to expand...




LOL!!!


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
Click to expand...


His RCP average is 5.8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination


----------



## Statistikhengst

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His RCP average is 5.8
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
Click to expand...



Yepp, just as I said, mired at about 5%.

Yepp.


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
Click to expand...

What is the sample size?  Who was polled?  Jesus, but you are a moron. Only morons cite to polls, right?


----------



## idb

The GOP should be embarrassed the way they are letting Fox control their candidacy process.


----------



## Statistikhengst

idb said:


> The GOP should be embarrassed the way they are letting Fox control their candidacy process.




Well, it's a low-information voter thingy...


all those non-minority voters they are holding captive on the Plantation....


----------



## Skylar

paddymurphy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the sample size?  Who was polled?  Jesus, but you are a moron. Only morons cite to polls, right?
Click to expand...


You're just not getting it. Only those polls that contradict Boss need to be questioned. Those that don't are fine.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Skylar said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cruz is mired at about 5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some polls show Cruz  at #2 behind Trump. RCP Avg. is 8 right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the sample size?  Who was polled?  Jesus, but you are a moron. Only morons cite to polls, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just not getting it. Only those polls that contradict Boss need to be questioned. Those that don't are fine.
Click to expand...



Because the Gods of Kobol tell him which polls are skewed and which are best served with horseradish.

This is important, folks!!


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> Boss
> 
> View attachment 47224



You're showing a poll from 2 weeks ago, idiot.


----------



## Vikrant

mudwhistle said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meghan McCain delivers an ultimate insult to Donald Trump. She calls him a millionaire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!!!
> 
> That's the worst thing you can call a politician.
Click to expand...


That is the worst thing you could call a billionaire


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate. However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate. Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?



Here's my analysis on that: 

I think Trump appeals to what I will call the "Kardashian Voters" ...people who ordinarily don't vote because they don't really give a rip... they are too busy following celebrity reality shows and such. These people number in the millions... they watch TV regularly along with you and I... they just don't vote. If Trump taps into that wealth of support, and he very much has that ability, look the fuck out. 

Let's discuss these "moderate/independents" for a minute... I happen to be a registered independent, for the record. I've not decided for sure who I will vote for in my primary... I like Ted  Cruz, I like Carson, I like several others... I'll probably vote for Cruz if he is still in the race by then... our primary is always late to the party and 'my guy' is usually out of it by then... but I have no hesitation supporting someone like Donald Trump. 

What BETTER person to appeal to someone who isn't steeped in party loyalty???? Name *ONE!*


----------



## Vikrant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate. However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate. Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my analysis on that:
> 
> I think Trump appeals to what I will call the "Kardashian Voters" ...people who ordinarily don't vote because they don't really give a rip... they are too busy following celebrity reality shows and such. These people number in the millions... they watch TV regularly along with you and I... they just don't vote. If Trump taps into that wealth of support, and he very much has that ability, look the fuck out.
> 
> Let's discuss these "moderate/independents" for a minute... I happen to be a registered independent, for the record. I've not decided for sure who I will vote for in my primary... I like Ted  Cruz, I like Carson, I like several others... I'll probably vote for Cruz if he is still in the race by then... our primary is always late to the party and 'my guy' is usually out of it by then... but I have no hesitation supporting someone like Donald Trump.
> 
> What BETTER person to appeal to someone who isn't steeped in party loyalty???? Name *ONE!*
Click to expand...


Bernie Sanders.

I think lobbies have almost no hold on either Trump or Sanders.


----------



## Boss

Vikrant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate. However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate. Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my analysis on that:
> 
> I think Trump appeals to what I will call the "Kardashian Voters" ...people who ordinarily don't vote because they don't really give a rip... they are too busy following celebrity reality shows and such. These people number in the millions... they watch TV regularly along with you and I... they just don't vote. If Trump taps into that wealth of support, and he very much has that ability, look the fuck out.
> 
> Let's discuss these "moderate/independents" for a minute... I happen to be a registered independent, for the record. I've not decided for sure who I will vote for in my primary... I like Ted  Cruz, I like Carson, I like several others... I'll probably vote for Cruz if he is still in the race by then... our primary is always late to the party and 'my guy' is usually out of it by then... but I have no hesitation supporting someone like Donald Trump.
> 
> What BETTER person to appeal to someone who isn't steeped in party loyalty???? Name *ONE!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders.
> 
> I think lobbies have almost no hold on either Trump or Sanders.
Click to expand...


Nope... Bernie = Unions


----------



## Vikrant

Boss said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate. However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate. Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my analysis on that:
> 
> I think Trump appeals to what I will call the "Kardashian Voters" ...people who ordinarily don't vote because they don't really give a rip... they are too busy following celebrity reality shows and such. These people number in the millions... they watch TV regularly along with you and I... they just don't vote. If Trump taps into that wealth of support, and he very much has that ability, look the fuck out.
> 
> Let's discuss these "moderate/independents" for a minute... I happen to be a registered independent, for the record. I've not decided for sure who I will vote for in my primary... I like Ted  Cruz, I like Carson, I like several others... I'll probably vote for Cruz if he is still in the race by then... our primary is always late to the party and 'my guy' is usually out of it by then... but I have no hesitation supporting someone like Donald Trump.
> 
> What BETTER person to appeal to someone who isn't steeped in party loyalty???? Name *ONE!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders.
> 
> I think lobbies have almost no hold on either Trump or Sanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Bernie = Unions
Click to expand...


In that case, Trump = Union (of CEOs)


----------



## David_42

Might want to rethink trump OP:
"
 Tuesday night, the Republican presidential front-runner defended the women's health services provider in an interview on Fox News' _Hannity. _Trump noted that abortion was a "fairly small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that "we have to look at the positives also for Planned Parenthood."

"They do good things," he said, interrupting interviewer Sean Hannity's question.

annual report, 3 percent of the roughly 11 million services it provided in 2013 were abortions. The other 97 percent included STD testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and other noncontroversial services.

Planned Parenthood said some of Trump's remarks in recent days have been "offensive," but it welcomed the statement of support the real estate mogul, the only Republican presidential candidate who has defended the organization.

"Donald Trump seems to have realized that banning all abortions, shutting down the government, and defunding Planned Parenthood are extreme positions that are way too far outside the mainstream for even him to take," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
"


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate. However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate. Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my analysis on that:
> 
> I think Trump appeals to what I will call the "Kardashian Voters" ...people who ordinarily don't vote because they don't really give a rip... they are too busy following celebrity reality shows and such. These people number in the millions... they watch TV regularly along with you and I... they just don't vote. If Trump taps into that wealth of support, and he very much has that ability, look the fuck out.
> 
> Let's discuss these "moderate/independents" for a minute... I happen to be a registered independent, for the record. I've not decided for sure who I will vote for in my primary... I like Ted  Cruz, I like Carson, I like several others... I'll probably vote for Cruz if he is still in the race by then... our primary is always late to the party and 'my guy' is usually out of it by then... but I have no hesitation supporting someone like Donald Trump.
> 
> What BETTER person to appeal to someone who isn't steeped in party loyalty???? Name *ONE!*
Click to expand...


That's certainly a valid point.  I just don't know that Trump will draw that many to vote who wouldn't normally.  Enough to offset any Republicans who won't vote because he's the candidate?  Sure.  Enough to actually win the election?  Far more iffy, I think.  I would guess that many, if not most, people who do not vote are simply not interested in politics.  I'm not sure Trump will get them interested.  Maybe?


----------



## Boss

Vikrant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if he gets the nod for Republicans, many might hold their nose and vote for him anyway, basically voting against the eventual Democrat candidate. However, enough seem to dislike him that it could easily lead to low turnout for Republicans on election day if he's the candidate. Does it seem likely that Trump will be able to carry enough moderate/independent voters to win if he has a low turnout of Republican voters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my analysis on that:
> 
> I think Trump appeals to what I will call the "Kardashian Voters" ...people who ordinarily don't vote because they don't really give a rip... they are too busy following celebrity reality shows and such. These people number in the millions... they watch TV regularly along with you and I... they just don't vote. If Trump taps into that wealth of support, and he very much has that ability, look the fuck out.
> 
> Let's discuss these "moderate/independents" for a minute... I happen to be a registered independent, for the record. I've not decided for sure who I will vote for in my primary... I like Ted  Cruz, I like Carson, I like several others... I'll probably vote for Cruz if he is still in the race by then... our primary is always late to the party and 'my guy' is usually out of it by then... but I have no hesitation supporting someone like Donald Trump.
> 
> What BETTER person to appeal to someone who isn't steeped in party loyalty???? Name *ONE!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders.
> 
> I think lobbies have almost no hold on either Trump or Sanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Bernie = Unions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, Trump = Union (of CEOs)
Click to expand...


As far as I know, Trump hasn't taken money from any CEO, Union or Corporate entity. 

Again... Look at Bernie's donor list to see who is funding his campaign... *UNIONS!*


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> Might want to rethink trump OP:
> "
> Tuesday night, the Republican presidential front-runner defended the women's health services provider in an interview on Fox News' _Hannity. _Trump noted that abortion was a "fairly small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that "we have to look at the positives also for Planned Parenthood."
> 
> "They do good things," he said, interrupting interviewer Sean Hannity's question.
> 
> annual report, 3 percent of the roughly 11 million services it provided in 2013 were abortions. The other 97 percent included STD testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and other noncontroversial services.
> 
> Planned Parenthood said some of Trump's remarks in recent days have been "offensive," but it welcomed the statement of support the real estate mogul, the only Republican presidential candidate who has defended the organization.
> 
> "Donald Trump seems to have realized that banning all abortions, shutting down the government, and defunding Planned Parenthood are extreme positions that are way too far outside the mainstream for even him to take," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
> "



So Trump points out that PP also does some good things... and Liberals are going to use THAT to smear him with his supporters?  ....Man.... it's getting to be 'desperation time' isn't it?  Basically.... what I am hearing is... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  He couldn't have taken a more *moderate* position... yet _no moderate would ever vote for Trump_, right? If a Conservative is "reasonable" about PP and recognizes they do offer a valuable service sometimes... that's a "bridge too far" because... hey, we all know every Conservative marches in lockstep behind the same rigid ideological socially-conservative beliefs!  *(NOT!)  *


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to rethink trump OP:
> "
> Tuesday night, the Republican presidential front-runner defended the women's health services provider in an interview on Fox News' _Hannity. _Trump noted that abortion was a "fairly small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that "we have to look at the positives also for Planned Parenthood."
> 
> "They do good things," he said, interrupting interviewer Sean Hannity's question.
> 
> annual report, 3 percent of the roughly 11 million services it provided in 2013 were abortions. The other 97 percent included STD testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and other noncontroversial services.
> 
> Planned Parenthood said some of Trump's remarks in recent days have been "offensive," but it welcomed the statement of support the real estate mogul, the only Republican presidential candidate who has defended the organization.
> 
> "Donald Trump seems to have realized that banning all abortions, shutting down the government, and defunding Planned Parenthood are extreme positions that are way too far outside the mainstream for even him to take," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump points out that PP also does some good things... and Liberals are going to use THAT to smear him with his supporters?  ....Man.... it's getting to be 'desperation time' isn't it?  Basically.... what I am hearing is... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  He couldn't have taken a more *moderate* position... yet _no moderate would ever vote for Trump_, right? If a Conservative is "reasonable" about PP and recognizes they do offer a valuable service sometimes... that's a "bridge too far" because... hey, we all know every Conservative marches in lockstep behind the same rigid ideological socially-conservative beliefs!  *(NOT!)  *
Click to expand...

You have that backwards. That's not smearing Trump, that's smearing his supporters.


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> You have that backwards. That's not smearing Trump, that's smearing his supporters.



Why don't you stop knee-jerk reacting, sit back and let someone teach you about how Conservative philosophy works?  ...You might LEARN something!


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. That's not smearing Trump, that's smearing his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop knee-jerk reacting, sit back and let someone teach you about how Conservative philosophy works?  ...You might LEARN something!
Click to expand...

If I wanted to learn about conservatism, I would watch the movie, 10,000 BC.


----------



## Muhammed

I just want Trump to win because I think it would be really funny if he lost his re-election campaign in 2020 and all the headlines said "YOU'RE FIRED!"


----------



## frigidweirdo

Montrovant said:


> That's certainly a valid point.  I just don't know that Trump will draw that many to vote who wouldn't normally.  Enough to offset any Republicans who won't vote because he's the candidate?  Sure.  Enough to actually win the election?  Far more iffy, I think.  I would guess that many, if not most, people who do not vote are simply not interested in politics.  I'm not sure Trump will get them interested.  Maybe?


Trump won't get people interested in politics, he might just get votes from people who love voting on reality TV programs though.

Politics = boo. Reality TV = yay.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Muhammed said:


> I just want Trump to win because I think it would be really funny if he lost his re-election campaign in 2020 and all the headlines said "YOU'RE FIRED!"



I want Trump to win because I'm an Islamic Terrorist and I think Trump will invade Iran, so we, ISIS, can take over Iran too really easily once Trump messes up Iran real good like he did with Iraq and made things so easy for us.

By the end of a Trump term of office we'll control the whole damn Middle East. Go Trumpy Baby.


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to rethink trump OP:
> "
> Tuesday night, the Republican presidential front-runner defended the women's health services provider in an interview on Fox News' _Hannity. _Trump noted that abortion was a "fairly small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that "we have to look at the positives also for Planned Parenthood."
> 
> "They do good things," he said, interrupting interviewer Sean Hannity's question.
> 
> annual report, 3 percent of the roughly 11 million services it provided in 2013 were abortions. The other 97 percent included STD testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and other noncontroversial services.
> 
> Planned Parenthood said some of Trump's remarks in recent days have been "offensive," but it welcomed the statement of support the real estate mogul, the only Republican presidential candidate who has defended the organization.
> 
> "Donald Trump seems to have realized that banning all abortions, shutting down the government, and defunding Planned Parenthood are extreme positions that are way too far outside the mainstream for even him to take," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump points out that PP also does some good things... and Liberals are going to use THAT to smear him with his supporters?  ....Man.... it's getting to be 'desperation time' isn't it?  Basically.... what I am hearing is... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  He couldn't have taken a more *moderate* position... yet _no moderate would ever vote for Trump_, right? If a Conservative is "reasonable" about PP and recognizes they do offer a valuable service sometimes... that's a "bridge too far" because... hey, we all know every Conservative marches in lockstep behind the same rigid ideological socially-conservative beliefs!  *(NOT!)  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have that backwards. That's not smearing Trump, that's smearing his supporters.
Click to expand...


No, I don't have anything backwards, I have it right. So does Trump. 

Hannity rails on and on with the outrage over PP... a big right-wing social issue atm... 
Tries to get Trump to join him in universal condemnation because that's the line we're towing... 
Trump doesn't bite... instead, like a TRUE CONSERVATIVE.... points out to Hannity that the organization does "SOME GOOD." 

Now.  YOU and your cronies are going to try and take THAT and use it against Trump... because YOU think his supporters will surely bail on his ass for such blasphemous comments! 

I'll sit back and watch THIS blow up in your stupid little liberal faces and Trump surge again in the polls...  This is FUN!


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to rethink trump OP:
> "
> Tuesday night, the Republican presidential front-runner defended the women's health services provider in an interview on Fox News' _Hannity. _Trump noted that abortion was a "fairly small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that "we have to look at the positives also for Planned Parenthood."
> 
> "They do good things," he said, interrupting interviewer Sean Hannity's question.
> 
> annual report, 3 percent of the roughly 11 million services it provided in 2013 were abortions. The other 97 percent included STD testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and other noncontroversial services.
> 
> Planned Parenthood said some of Trump's remarks in recent days have been "offensive," but it welcomed the statement of support the real estate mogul, the only Republican presidential candidate who has defended the organization.
> 
> "Donald Trump seems to have realized that banning all abortions, shutting down the government, and defunding Planned Parenthood are extreme positions that are way too far outside the mainstream for even him to take," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump points out that PP also does some good things... and Liberals are going to use THAT to smear him with his supporters?  ....Man.... it's getting to be 'desperation time' isn't it?  Basically.... what I am hearing is... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  He couldn't have taken a more *moderate* position... yet _no moderate would ever vote for Trump_, right? If a Conservative is "reasonable" about PP and recognizes they do offer a valuable service sometimes... that's a "bridge too far" because... hey, we all know every Conservative marches in lockstep behind the same rigid ideological socially-conservative beliefs!  *(NOT!)  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have that backwards. That's not smearing Trump, that's smearing his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't have anything backwards, I have it right. So does Trump.
> 
> Hannity rails on and on with the outrage over PP... a big right-wing social issue atm...
> Tries to get Trump to join him in universal condemnation because that's the line we're towing...
> Trump doesn't bite... instead, like a TRUE CONSERVATIVE.... points out to Hannity that the organization does "SOME GOOD."
> 
> Now.  YOU and your cronies are going to try and take THAT and use it against Trump... because YOU think his supporters will surely bail on his ass for such blasphemous comments!
> 
> I'll sit back and watch THIS blow up in your stupid little liberal faces and Trump surge again in the polls...  This is FUN!
Click to expand...

Wrong, as usual. Trump is expected to say good things about PP. He's the most Liberal Republican running. So pointing out he had positive things to say about PP is not a slam at him at all. It IS a slam against the righties who support him because they are stuck supporting a RINO who and have to suck it up as their guy drags them to the left.


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Wrong, as usual. Trump is expected to say good things about PP. He's the most Liberal Republican running. So pointing out he had positive things to say about PP is not a slam at him at all. It IS a slam against the righties who support him because they are stuck supporting a RINO who and have to suck it up as their guy drags them to the left.



I am HOPING he is a true RINO... for real! I am SICK of Republicans! 

Wow... A Liberal/Conservative Republican?  .....might spell some trouble for your party!


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Trump is expected to say good things about PP.



I don't think Trump knows he is 'expected to say' anything. Maybe you should inform him?  

I do think that he made a good point to Hannity. I have problems with PP... don't get me wrong. I think it is reprehensible and deplorable what they have been doing and you liberals have been cheering. As Mike Huckabee put it... selling parts off fetuses like an old Buick.  That needs to be investigated and anyone involved in such a thing should be sent to prison. Those chapters of PP should be shut down permanently and we shouldn't be funding ANY of PP with federal tax dollars. 

But the point Trump was making is about moderating tone. Before we jump to condemn something as a whole, we should look at all the aspects objectively. There ARE some good services provided by this organization, especially in certain communities. That's really all he was saying... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, in the case of PP, they want to part the baby out... but I digress. 

I actually don't mind Trump having a moderate ideology... I think that appeals to most Americans. I want a Conservative who doesn't get wrapped up in dogmatic ideology and remains consistent with level-headed conservative philosophy on everything. I might not agree with him all all things, but I know that he isn't pressing some radical agenda. I can live with it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss
> 
> View attachment 47224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're showing a poll from 2 weeks ago, idiot.
Click to expand...



Uhm, no.

You are apparently brain-dead.

That screen shot is from YESTERDAY EVENING from RCP.

It shows the latest 5 polls, the newest of which was completed on 8/10 and released YESTERDAY.

The oldest of the five is indeed two weeks old. That is correct. In measuring aggregates, a two to even four week time frame is - for this phase of the game - totally acceptable. Closer to the GE, most narrow the time frame to 7 days maximum, maybe less, depending on frequency of polling.

This is why it is called an AGGREGATE. You do understand that, right?

You really need to look and read before you growl something incomprehensible.


----------



## Slyhunter

Muhammed said:


> I just want Trump to win because I think it would be really funny if he lost his re-election campaign in 2020 and all the headlines said "YOU'RE FIRED!"


Saw on facebook trump & cruz could go on for 16 years.


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss
> 
> View attachment 47224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're showing a poll from 2 weeks ago, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no.
> 
> You are apparently brain-dead.
> 
> That screen shot is from YESTERDAY EVENING from RCP.
> 
> It shows the latest 5 polls, the newest of which was completed on 8/10 and released YESTERDAY.
> 
> The oldest of the five is indeed two weeks old. That is correct. In measuring aggregates, a two to even four week time frame is - for this phase of the game - totally acceptable. Closer to the GE, most narrow the time frame to 7 days maximum, maybe less, depending on frequency of polling.
> 
> This is why it is called an AGGREGATE. You do understand that, right?
> 
> You really need to look and read before you growl something incomprehensible.
Click to expand...


Meh... can't be bothered... you're boring me.


----------



## paddymurphy

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss
> 
> View attachment 47224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're showing a poll from 2 weeks ago, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no.
> 
> You are apparently brain-dead.
> 
> That screen shot is from YESTERDAY EVENING from RCP.
> 
> It shows the latest 5 polls, the newest of which was completed on 8/10 and released YESTERDAY.
> 
> The oldest of the five is indeed two weeks old. That is correct. In measuring aggregates, a two to even four week time frame is - for this phase of the game - totally acceptable. Closer to the GE, most narrow the time frame to 7 days maximum, maybe less, depending on frequency of polling.
> 
> This is why it is called an AGGREGATE. You do understand that, right?
> 
> You really need to look and read before you growl something incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh... can't be bothered... you're boring me.
Click to expand...

"Can't be bothered..." to worry about accuracy or truth. Those things get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is expected to say good things about PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Trump knows he is 'expected to say' anything. Maybe you should inform him?
> 
> I do think that he made a good point to Hannity. I have problems with PP... don't get me wrong. I think it is reprehensible and deplorable what they have been doing and you liberals have been cheering. As Mike Huckabee put it... selling parts off fetuses like an old Buick.  That needs to be investigated and anyone involved in such a thing should be sent to prison. Those chapters of PP should be shut down permanently and we shouldn't be funding ANY of PP with federal tax dollars.
> 
> But the point Trump was making is about moderating tone. Before we jump to condemn something as a whole, we should look at all the aspects objectively. There ARE some good services provided by this organization, especially in certain communities. That's really all he was saying... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, in the case of PP, they want to part the baby out... but I digress.
> 
> I actually don't mind Trump having a moderate ideology... I think that appeals to most Americans. I want a Conservative who doesn't get wrapped up in dogmatic ideology and remains consistent with level-headed conservative philosophy on everything. I might not agree with him all all things, but I know that he isn't pressing some radical agenda. I can live with it.
Click to expand...

Works for me ... means Hillary will win.

Hoping to win some of the middle, Republicans went with a moderate Republican in 2008 and lost.

Republicans tried that again in 2012 and lost again.

Try that again this year and you'll get the same results.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss
> 
> View attachment 47224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're showing a poll from 2 weeks ago, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no.
> 
> You are apparently brain-dead.
> 
> That screen shot is from YESTERDAY EVENING from RCP.
> 
> It shows the latest 5 polls, the newest of which was completed on 8/10 and released YESTERDAY.
> 
> The oldest of the five is indeed two weeks old. That is correct. In measuring aggregates, a two to even four week time frame is - for this phase of the game - totally acceptable. Closer to the GE, most narrow the time frame to 7 days maximum, maybe less, depending on frequency of polling.
> 
> This is why it is called an AGGREGATE. You do understand that, right?
> 
> You really need to look and read before you growl something incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh... can't be bothered... you're boring me.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that you don't know how it works.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Seawytch

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss
> 
> View attachment 47224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're showing a poll from 2 weeks ago, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no.
> 
> You are apparently brain-dead.
> 
> That screen shot is from YESTERDAY EVENING from RCP.
> 
> It shows the latest 5 polls, the newest of which was completed on 8/10 and released YESTERDAY.
> 
> The oldest of the five is indeed two weeks old. That is correct. In measuring aggregates, a two to even four week time frame is - for this phase of the game - totally acceptable. Closer to the GE, most narrow the time frame to 7 days maximum, maybe less, depending on frequency of polling.
> 
> This is why it is called an AGGREGATE. You do understand that, right?
> 
> You really need to look and read before you growl something incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh... can't be bothered... you're boring me.
Click to expand...


Translation: Herp derp


----------



## MarcATL

Skylar said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 'bush' and all other MODERATE 'rinos' are the guys pandering to 'hispanics'  , muslims , and every other minority group .  Well , same thing for the dems and they are better at the pandering .   I'll take Cruz , Trump or whoever I perceive as not pandering Slyhunter .   Course , if it a 'rino' nominee , well , I already have my plans .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who needs women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, liberals, moderates, or 'RINO's when you're running as a 'true conservative'.
> 
> That 'big tent' is looking more like a mid sized umbrella.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMBAO! 

I might just have to use that one day. 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## pismoe

hey Marc , good morning !!     Are you trying to say something ??


----------



## guno

Skylar said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 'bush' and all other MODERATE 'rinos' are the guys pandering to 'hispanics'  , muslims , and every other minority group .  Well , same thing for the dems and they are better at the pandering .   I'll take Cruz , Trump or whoever I perceive as not pandering Slyhunter .   Course , if it a 'rino' nominee , well , I already have my plans .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who needs women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, liberals, moderates, or 'RINO's when you're running as a 'true conservative'.
> 
> That 'big tent' is looking more like a mid sized umbrella.
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to rethink trump OP:
> "
> Tuesday night, the Republican presidential front-runner defended the women's health services provider in an interview on Fox News' _Hannity. _Trump noted that abortion was a "fairly small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that "we have to look at the positives also for Planned Parenthood."
> 
> "They do good things," he said, interrupting interviewer Sean Hannity's question.
> 
> annual report, 3 percent of the roughly 11 million services it provided in 2013 were abortions. The other 97 percent included STD testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and other noncontroversial services.
> 
> Planned Parenthood said some of Trump's remarks in recent days have been "offensive," but it welcomed the statement of support the real estate mogul, the only Republican presidential candidate who has defended the organization.
> 
> "Donald Trump seems to have realized that banning all abortions, shutting down the government, and defunding Planned Parenthood are extreme positions that are way too far outside the mainstream for even him to take," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump points out that PP also does some good things... and Liberals are going to use THAT to smear him with his supporters?  ....Man.... it's getting to be 'desperation time' isn't it?  Basically.... what I am hearing is... damned if you do, damned if you don't.  He couldn't have taken a more *moderate* position... yet _no moderate would ever vote for Trump_, right? If a Conservative is "reasonable" about PP and recognizes they do offer a valuable service sometimes... that's a "bridge too far" because... hey, we all know every Conservative marches in lockstep behind the same rigid ideological socially-conservative beliefs!  *(NOT!)  *
Click to expand...


Lets see.....supports Planned Parenthood, advocates conditional amnesty for illegals, and lavishly praises single payer European style healthcare. 

Sounds like a 'true conservative' to me.


----------



## pismoe

naw , doesn't sound conservative on those issues but still better than one of the 'bushs' or other Rinos .  Course , Donald is for the strongest military possible and he has plans formulated to go get 'Islamic state' .   Plus he is good [words anyway] , on border control and as YOU said 'conditional' amnesty .   Best of all , he has no allegiance to big money donors or the 'gop' and that's really the most important thing to me . ------------------    Issues like 'pp' can be worked out and I heard him talking to 'hannity' about redoing obamacare .   Just getting rid of the mandate to purchase obamacare is good enough for me Skylar .


----------



## sealybobo

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


I'm pro Trump now.  So far I like the things he says and he is not a typical Republican.  If he keeps saying things I like maybe I'll go with him over Bernie Sanders.  But Trump has won me over between him and Hillary or any of the other Democrats.  They like the Republican field are all just more of the same.  Sellouts.

One thing I know Bernie is not is a sellout.  Trump, if he does sell us out, well then he'll be a big fat liar because he made an awful lot of promises to be different.

Trump V. Sanders 2016!!


----------



## pismoe

Trump on 'pp' ---   Donald Trump No Tax Dollars for Planned Parenthood Abortions  ---  so , if I read it right , no problem for me with Trumps plans on 'planned parenthood' Skylar !!


----------



## pismoe

and Trump pulling in the best brains , or at least learned people to help put his ideas into motion Skylar .  ---   ---


----------



## The sheeple sea

Trump seems like a joke, that being said, he's a better joke than his competition in the primary.


----------



## pismoe

seems like a stand up guy to me , says what he means .  Looks like he is serious about being president .   As you say , he is a better joke than his 'rino' competition .


----------



## Boss

The sheeple sea said:


> Trump seems like a joke, that being said, he's a better joke than his competition in the primary.



I will admit, in the beginning I was not sold. He did seem to be a bit of a "joke" as far as running for prez... but as I have listened to him speak on the issues I have come to realize he is a very smart man with some very sound ideas. He is a philosophical Conservative, meaning, he is not tied to a rigid ideological viewpoint. He has the potential to unite all Conservatives under the philosophy of Conservatism the way Ronald Reagan did in 1980. THIS is why the Liberals are running scared.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Lets see.....supports Planned Parenthood, advocates conditional amnesty for illegals, and lavishly praises single payer European style healthcare.
> 
> Sounds like a 'true conservative' to me.



Again, you believe "Conservative" is something it isn't.  Liberals created a Frankenstein Ideology of Conservatism and adorned it with all kinds of undesirable viewpoints and ideologies. But TRUE Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. 

I actually think Trump's response to Hannity on PP is illustrative of what true Conservatism is all about... Pragmatic approaches, reasoned and objective analysis, looking at the good and bad, not being ideologically-driven or a knee-jerk reactionary. Of course, Trump schooling Hannity on Conservatism is something I never expected to see... but it is what it is.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see.....supports Planned Parenthood, advocates conditional amnesty for illegals, and lavishly praises single payer European style healthcare.
> 
> Sounds like a 'true conservative' to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you believe "Conservative" is something it isn't.  Liberals created a Frankenstein Ideology of Conservatism and adorned it with all kinds of undesirable viewpoints and ideologies. But TRUE Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology.
Click to expand...


So Single Payer healthcare is conservative?


----------



## pismoe

and WHERE did Skylar go ??   Heck , you educate them and they just take off without even a little Thankyou post or message .


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Works for me ... means Hillary will win.
> 
> Hoping to win some of the middle, Republicans went with a moderate Republican in 2008 and lost.
> 
> Republicans tried that again in 2012 and lost again.
> 
> Try that again this year and you'll get the same results.



Then why are you so worried? If Trump ensures a Hillary victory, I would expect you yahoos to be singing his praises instead of trying everything in the book to take him out.  Makes no sense. From the get-go, Trump has had you idiots dancing around praising war heroes, defending Fox News and now, turning on Planned Parenthood!  ...If we could only get him to say bad things about Dubya!


----------



## Skylar

pismoe said:


> and WHERE did Skylar go ??   Heck , you educate them and they just take off without even a little Thankyou post or message .



I'm right here. The post before yours, in fact.


----------



## pismoe

and like a bad penny Skylar shows up , I posted 2 seconds too early I guess .  Trump has said that he will replace 'obamacare' Skylar .


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me ... means Hillary will win.
> 
> Hoping to win some of the middle, Republicans went with a moderate Republican in 2008 and lost.
> 
> Republicans tried that again in 2012 and lost again.
> 
> Try that again this year and you'll get the same results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you so worried? If Trump ensures a Hillary victory, I would expect you yahoos to be singing his praises instead of trying everything in the book to take him out.  Makes no sense. From the get-go, Trump has had you idiots dancing around praising war heroes, defending Fox News and now, turning on Planned Parenthood!  ...If we could only get him to say bad things about Dubya!
Click to expand...


Who is turning on planned parenthood? There's conservatives and....who?


----------



## pismoe

agreed Skylar .  I thought that you were pulling an OREO !!


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> So Single Payer healthcare is conservative?



Trump did not say he wanted single payer healthcare. That is your misconstruction of what he said and you are trying desperately to spin his comments into that so you can hopefully stop his momentum... because he scares the tee-total shit out of you people. 

He has said, Obamacare is a disaster and his first order of business will be to repeal it. He then wants to replace it with _Health Savings Plans_, which is *exactly* what Conservatives pushed during the health care debate. He makes the same point MANY Conservatives have, that we CAN cover virtually every American with something that works.... it's just not Obamacare.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me ... means Hillary will win.
> 
> Hoping to win some of the middle, Republicans went with a moderate Republican in 2008 and lost.
> 
> Republicans tried that again in 2012 and lost again.
> 
> Try that again this year and you'll get the same results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you so worried? If Trump ensures a Hillary victory, I would expect you yahoos to be singing his praises instead of trying everything in the book to take him out.  Makes no sense. From the get-go, Trump has had you idiots dancing around praising war heroes, defending Fox News and now, turning on Planned Parenthood!  ...If we could only get him to say bad things about Dubya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is turning on planned parenthood? There's conservatives and....who?
Click to expand...


Well, you're all acting like it's some "gawd-awful" thing that Trump said something nice about PP... sounds like that to me.


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Single Payer healthcare is conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did not say he wanted single payer healthcare. That is your misconstruction of what he said and you are trying desperately to spin his comments into that so you can hopefully stop his momentum... because he scares the tee-total shit out of you people.
> 
> He has said, Obamacare is a disaster and his first order of business will be to repeal it. He then wants to replace it with _Health Savings Plans_, which is *exactly* what Conservatives pushed during the health care debate. He makes the same point MANY Conservatives have, that we CAN cover virtually every American with something that works.... it's just not Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, eradicating the invisible lines on state borders so insurance companies can compete Nationally.

I would like him to allow us to buy our drugs from Canada too.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Single Payer healthcare is conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did not say he wanted single payer healthcare. That is your misconstruction of what he said and you are trying desperately to spin his comments into that so you can hopefully stop his momentum... because he scares the tee-total shit out of you people.
Click to expand...


I said he lavishly praised single payer healthcare. How is that a misconstruction?

And notice that that you straight up refuse to answer if single payer is conservative. I think we both know the answer.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Don't forget, eradicating the invisible lines on state borders so insurance companies can compete Nationally.



Exactly! Portability... another *key argument* Conservatives made in the health care debate.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me ... means Hillary will win.
> 
> Hoping to win some of the middle, Republicans went with a moderate Republican in 2008 and lost.
> 
> Republicans tried that again in 2012 and lost again.
> 
> Try that again this year and you'll get the same results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you so worried? If Trump ensures a Hillary victory, I would expect you yahoos to be singing his praises instead of trying everything in the book to take him out.  Makes no sense. From the get-go, Trump has had you idiots dancing around praising war heroes, defending Fox News and now, turning on Planned Parenthood!  ...If we could only get him to say bad things about Dubya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is turning on planned parenthood? There's conservatives and....who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're all acting like it's some "gawd-awful" thing that Trump said something nice about PP... sounds like that to me.
Click to expand...

I'm acting like Planned Parenthood isn't supported by most conservatives. But is supported by Trump.

Is PP 'conservative'?


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> I said he lavishly praised single payer healthcare. How is that a misconstruction?



When was that?


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> I'm acting like Planned Parenthood isn't supported by most conservatives. But is supported by Trump.



He did not say he supported them. He pointed out to Hannity that only about 3% of what they do is abortion-related... they DO provide many valuable services for women... that's all he said. Now... Is he WRONG or RIGHT?  Forget about "Conservative" for a minute and answer the question.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he lavishly praised single payer healthcare. How is that a misconstruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was that?
Click to expand...


Check post 443 of this thread. Its your own reply to my post. 

Then check what you were replying to. Because you obviously didn't read it when you did.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I'm still wondering why Trump wants to increase the military.

We already have the best one in the world.

Biggest one too.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm acting like Planned Parenthood isn't supported by most conservatives. But is supported by Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say he supported them. He pointed out to Hannity that only about 3% of what they do is abortion-related... they DO provide many valuable services for women... that's all he said. Now... Is he WRONG or RIGHT?  Forget about "Conservative" for a minute and answer the question.
Click to expand...


He's certainly expressed support for continued federal funding for planned parenthood's operations that he says are 'good'. Which puts him in start opposition to the rest of the GOP field.



> In an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN’s “New Day" on Tuesday, Trump said, "the biggest problem I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation,” he said. “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government.”
> 
> But he continued by saying he wouldn't necessarily defund the organization.
> 
> “If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News



And since the Federal government doesn't fund abortions but instead the 'good things for women', problem solved for 'president trump'.


----------



## Skylar

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm still wondering why Trump wants to increase the military.
> 
> We already have the best one in the world.



Its low hanging fruit among conservatives. Almost no one is going to question increasing funding to the military. Even if we can't afford it.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> He's certainly expressed support for continued federal funding for planned parenthood's operations that he says are 'good'. Which puts him in start opposition to the rest of the GOP field.



No.. he said "we have to look at that." You are again trying to put words in Trump's mouth... I will warn you, this may result in blood shooting out of your eyes, or wherever.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's certainly expressed support for continued federal funding for planned parenthood's operations that he says are 'good'. Which puts him in start opposition to the rest of the GOP field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. he said "we have to look at that." You are again trying to put words in Trump's mouth... I will warn you, this may result in blood shooting out of your eyes, or wherever.
Click to expand...


He said this:



> “If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”



These are the words I'm putting in Trumps mouth: the one's the came out of it.


----------



## pismoe

One of the few things I approve of coming from 'fed gov' is to increase and rebuild the military , one of the few things I approve of along with border security and control .  Just a comment because I see military mentioned in this thread .  I don't care how good it is , I want to see USA military bigger and stronger and better .    Trump says that he will do that no matter what others have to say .


----------



## pismoe

everyone is interested in Donald Trump ---  LIVE TONIGHT at 8 30 on WMAL Donald Trump Joins The Mark Levin Show 105.9 FM and AM 630 Where Washington Comes To Talk WMAL-AF  ---   he is on MARK LEVIN tonight , check him out .


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's certainly expressed support for continued federal funding for planned parenthood's operations that he says are 'good'. Which puts him in start opposition to the rest of the GOP field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. he said "we have to look at that." You are again trying to put words in Trump's mouth... I will warn you, this may result in blood shooting out of your eyes, or wherever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are the words I'm putting in Trumps mouth: the one's the came out of it.
Click to expand...


So again... what is wrong with what he said? I would think most rational reasonable people who aren't on some kind of party-loyal mission to have their favorite politician elected, would listen to this and think... that's reasonable and level-headed thinking and I agree with him. 

And no.... I can't let you get away with backpedaling. 

First quote: "He's certainly expressed support for continued federal funding for planned parenthood's operations that he says are 'good'." 

Backpedal: "I would look at the individual things that they do..." 

He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP."  He said he would look  at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.


----------



## Boss

pismoe said:


> One of the few things I approve of coming from 'fed gov' is to increase and rebuild the military , one of the few things I approve of along with border security and control .  Just a comment because I see military mentioned in this thread .  I don't care how good it is , I want to see USA military bigger and stronger and better .    Trump says that he will do that no matter what others have to say .



Let me pull a bit of a Trump here and challenge the popular "pro-military spending" plank the Liberals have welded to the False Ideology of Conservative.... 

For years, strong conservatives have advocated and campaigned on more defense spending. It sounds good... gets the base all excited waving their flags and cheering... defense contractors LOVE this kind of talk.... when they get to Washington, they push through massive defense bills with all kinds of multi-billion-dollar weapon building projects... most of these are obsolete by the time we complete them. 

Because it is such a popular position, and because of the nature of legislation (sausage making), we now have a massive defense budget but we don't have the biggest or best military on the planet anymore. 

We need to objectively evaluate *every defense expenditure from top to bottom...* across the board. If it's waste or redundant, eliminate it. If it's obsolete or ineffective... cut it. At the same time, we need to increase veteran benefits. I don't like the idea of closing bases because it ends up killing economies in entire communities. We can cut enough waste to keep bases open and veterans taken care of, and STILL have the best military on the planet.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me ... means Hillary will win.
> 
> Hoping to win some of the middle, Republicans went with a moderate Republican in 2008 and lost.
> 
> Republicans tried that again in 2012 and lost again.
> 
> Try that again this year and you'll get the same results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you so worried? If Trump ensures a Hillary victory, I would expect you yahoos to be singing his praises instead of trying everything in the book to take him out.  Makes no sense. From the get-go, Trump has had you idiots dancing around praising war heroes, defending Fox News and now, turning on Planned Parenthood!  ...If we could only get him to say bad things about Dubya!
Click to expand...

Yet another inane post from you among a long line of them. I'm not worried about Trump. Personally, I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> I'm not worried about Trump.



Sure you're not... we can all tell by your posts!


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.



Well... he'll have to lose the GOP nomination first.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm acting like Planned Parenthood isn't supported by most conservatives. But is supported by Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say he supported them. He pointed out to Hannity that only about 3% of what they do is abortion-related... they DO provide many valuable services for women... that's all he said. Now... Is he WRONG or RIGHT?  Forget about "Conservative" for a minute and answer the question.
Click to expand...

He was also pro-choice. But like his flip-flop on healthcare to appeal to the right, it's very possible he's flip-flopped on that as well.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you're not... we can all tell by your posts!
Click to expand...

He sure does get you to sport wood, huh?


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... he'll have to lose the GOP nomination first.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the few things I approve of coming from 'fed gov' is to increase and rebuild the military , one of the few things I approve of along with border security and control .  Just a comment because I see military mentioned in this thread .  I don't care how good it is , I want to see USA military bigger and stronger and better .    Trump says that he will do that no matter what others have to say .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pull a bit of a Trump here and challenge the popular "pro-military spending" plank the Liberals have welded to the False Ideology of Conservative....
> 
> For years, strong conservatives have advocated and campaigned on more defense spending. It sounds good... gets the base all excited waving their flags and cheering... defense contractors LOVE this kind of talk.... when they get to Washington, they push through massive defense bills with all kinds of multi-billion-dollar weapon building projects... most of these are obsolete by the time we complete them.
> 
> Because it is such a popular position, and because of the nature of legislation (sausage making), we now have a massive defense budget *but we don't have the biggest or best military on the planet anymore*.
> 
> We need to objectively evaluate *every defense expenditure from top to bottom...* across the board. If it's waste or redundant, eliminate it. If it's obsolete or ineffective... cut it. At the same time, we need to increase veteran benefits. I don't like the idea of closing bases because it ends up killing economies in entire communities. We can cut enough waste to keep bases open and veterans taken care of, and STILL have the best military on the planet.
Click to expand...


Who is it you would call the biggest and/or best military on the planet?  We certainly spend far more than anyone else if the various charts about this subject that usually go around are to be believed.

I don't doubt that someone like China has more manpower, if that's the metric for biggest, but best?


----------



## pismoe

I want it bigger , better and stronger in all cases Montrovant .  Trump says that he will do that as well as a border wall .  I like that and will support Trump if he is nominated .


----------



## pismoe

TRUMP , bush , roobio , kasich , christy , and I'll take Trump no matter as a repub or independent .  Cruz and Carson are also ok in my opinion .


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Who is it you would call the biggest and/or best military on the planet?



China. They have both more hardware and more enlisted. 

You have to remember, Obama has gutted our military.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it you would call the biggest and/or best military on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China. They have both more hardware and more enlisted.
> 
> You have to remember, Obama has gutted our military.
Click to expand...


Really?  Our military has been 'gutted'?  I'm curious just what that means.  How have our force levels dropped during Obama's tenure?  Are we spending less, have we decommissioned a lot of equipment, have we cut down drastically on the number of active duty personnel compared to the past?

And while China may have more, that certainly doesn't make their military better or more effective.  Quantity can certainly do a lot, but quality can as well.  Also, particularly when it comes to naval warfare, I was under the impression the US was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to any other military.  I don't claim any expertise, so if you show me I'm wrong I'll be happy to accept it.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it you would call the biggest and/or best military on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China. They have both more hardware and more enlisted.
> 
> You have to remember, Obama has gutted our military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Our military has been 'gutted'?  I'm curious just what that means.  How have our force levels dropped during Obama's tenure?  Are we spending less, have we decommissioned a lot of equipment, have we cut down drastically on the number of active duty personnel compared to the past?
> 
> And while China may have more, that certainly doesn't make their military better or more effective.  Quantity can certainly do a lot, but quality can as well.  Also, particularly when it comes to naval warfare, I was under the impression the US was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to any other military.  I don't claim any expertise, so if you show me I'm wrong I'll be happy to accept it.
Click to expand...


I don't really feel like going and looking all this up just to prove a point to you. Obama is pretty much anti-military. We have decommissioned a lot... We've not built an Ohio-class sub in nearly 20 years. We have fighter jets currently being built that are costing us a billion dollars each and they are already obsolete. The last B-52 we built was in 1962. 

And... we can sit here all day speculating on who has "the best" military. It's subjective. China has more boots to put on the ground and more hardware for them to use. That once was not the case and it wasn't that long ago.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I guess that you forgot about the Seawolf class submarine.

The first one in it's class is called the USS Jimmy Carter.

Google it sometime.  It's a bit more formidable (and a bit better) than the Ohio class ever thought about being.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> I guess that you forgot about the Seawolf class submarine.
> 
> The first one in it's class is called the USS Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Google it sometime.  It's a bit more formidable (and a bit better) than the Ohio class ever thought about being.



We have a whopping *THREE* of them!


----------



## Camp

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that you forgot about the Seawolf class submarine.
> 
> The first one in it's class is called the USS Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Google it sometime.  It's a bit more formidable (and a bit better) than the Ohio class ever thought about being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a whopping *THREE* of them!
Click to expand...

They are being replaced with the Virginia Class since 2000 you idiot. Twenty of them have been commissioned and are in service and new ones are being built at a rate of two per year at the present time. Last one was completed eight months ahead of schedule and fifty four million dollars under budget.  We have the largest and most sophisticated submarine force on the planet.

www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.aspx


----------



## Boss

Camp said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that you forgot about the Seawolf class submarine.
> 
> The first one in it's class is called the USS Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Google it sometime.  It's a bit more formidable (and a bit better) than the Ohio class ever thought about being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a whopping *THREE* of them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being replaced with the Virginia Class since 2000 you idiot. Twenty of them have been commissioned and are in service and new ones are being built at a rate of two per year at the present time. Last one was completed eight months ahead of schedule and fifty four million dollars under budget.  We have the largest and most sophisticated submarine force on the planet.
> 
> www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.aspx
Click to expand...


I just LOVE how Trump transforms anti-military war-protesting liberal miscreant punks into full-fledged four-star military and naval expert know-it-alls! 

So now we have 20 more Virginia-class which must be better than the three Seawolf-class, which is better than the Ohio-class. Well it's comforting to know we have 23 subs to help out the fleet of 20 year old subs that are obsolete.  

....How many square miles of ocean are there again?


----------



## Camp

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that you forgot about the Seawolf class submarine.
> 
> The first one in it's class is called the USS Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Google it sometime.  It's a bit more formidable (and a bit better) than the Ohio class ever thought about being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a whopping *THREE* of them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being replaced with the Virginia Class since 2000 you idiot. Twenty of them have been commissioned and are in service and new ones are being built at a rate of two per year at the present time. Last one was completed eight months ahead of schedule and fifty four million dollars under budget.  We have the largest and most sophisticated submarine force on the planet.
> 
> www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.aspx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just LOVE how Trump transforms anti-military war-protesting liberal miscreant punks into full-fledged four-star military and naval expert know-it-alls!
> 
> So now we have 20 more Virginia-class which must be better than the three Seawolf-class, which is better than the Ohio-class. Well it's comforting to know we have 23 subs to help out the fleet of 20 year old subs that are obsolete.
> 
> ....How many square miles of ocean are there again?
Click to expand...

Ohio Class submarines are boomers.  That means their only mission is to launch nuclear ICBM's. They are not obsolete. They are updated regularly with advanced technology.  The Sea Wolf submarine is an attack submarine that was designed to chase down enemy submarines, launch cruise missiles and deliver SEAL Teams. The Sea Wolf did not replace the Ohio Class. They are two entirely different types of submarines with different missions.  The Virginia Class was designed to be suited to custom multi use purposes that include all the missions of the Sea Wolf. 
The size of the ocean doesn't matter. The US Navy works with satellites and other modern stuff to figure out where enemy ships are hiding in that big ocean. Your stupid way of thinking would require us to have thousands of submarines all over the world. 
You should try to learn something about the topic you are discussing before going into one of your lame insult rants. Think about it, you mocked the fact there were only three Sea Wolf's in operation without any knowledge that they began being replaced 15 years ago with an updated modern new version. Now don't you feel like a fool? No,probably not. You are one of those cowards who lack any character and will lash out with crude insults rather that admit a mistake.


----------



## Camp

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it you would call the biggest and/or best military on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China. They have both more hardware and more enlisted.
> 
> You have to remember, Obama has gutted our military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Our military has been 'gutted'?  I'm curious just what that means.  How have our force levels dropped during Obama's tenure?  Are we spending less, have we decommissioned a lot of equipment, have we cut down drastically on the number of active duty personnel compared to the past?
> 
> And while China may have more, that certainly doesn't make their military better or more effective.  Quantity can certainly do a lot, but quality can as well.  Also, particularly when it comes to naval warfare, I was under the impression the US was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to any other military.  I don't claim any expertise, so if you show me I'm wrong I'll be happy to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really feel like going and looking all this up just to prove a point to you. Obama is pretty much anti-military. We have decommissioned a lot... We've not built an Ohio-class sub in nearly 20 years. We have fighter jets currently being built that are costing us a billion dollars each and they are already obsolete. The last B-52 we built was in 1962.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Google B-1 Bomber and B-2 Bomber you dope. And what have we decommissioned that hasn't been replaced with something newer and more modern?


----------



## Boss




----------



## Boss

Camp said:


> Google B-1 Bomber and B-2 Bomber you dope. And what have we decommissioned that hasn't been replaced with something newer and more modern?



Hey buddy.. I am not a military expert and I don't know jack about subs and bombers other than stuff I read. Someone said something about military spending and I said we need to cut the waste and redundancy, eliminate obsolete programs and increase vet benefits. Next thing I know, I have morons calling me a dope and flexing their mental muscle on submarine classes.  

Okay.. I give up... you win! Obama is the Greatest president ever in history and has done nothing but make our military stronger from top to bottom with state of the art weapons and subs because Obama LOVES the military and everything about it.  ...Is that what you needed to hear?  Oh... and Hillary is the second greatest person to ever live besides Obama and when she is president, will make the military even bigger and stronger with even better submarines!  ...We good now?


----------



## cereal_killer

I love how right wingers force on everyone what it means to be a Republican/Conservative. Preprogrammed Morons. News flash...libs have some valuable stances/opinions on the issues, adopt them and evolve


----------



## Boss

cereal_killer said:


> I love how right wingers force on everyone what it means to be a Republican/Conservative. Preprogrammed Morons. News flash...libs have some valuable stances/opinions on the issues, adopt them and evolve



I honestly don't think you have any business whatsoever talking to me about what people want to force on everyone.  I mean... really? ...Do we need to run down the long list of shit you've crammed down our throats like little Mussolinis for the past 8 years?  

Why don't you have a big tall glass of STFU and crawl back under your rock?


----------



## pismoe

I just want a bigger stronger military .       Trump says that he will do that .  His words are better than what mrobama has done to US military these last 7 years , imo .  Anyway , Trump is just advertising his ideas as he hopes to attract people that think like he does .   Think that Trump is still doing pretty good today although I haven't seen the news on his numbers yet .


----------



## Camp

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google B-1 Bomber and B-2 Bomber you dope. And what have we decommissioned that hasn't been replaced with something newer and more modern?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey buddy.. I am not a military expert and I don't know jack about subs and bombers other than stuff I read. Someone said something about military spending and I said we need to cut the waste and redundancy, eliminate obsolete programs and increase vet benefits. Next thing I know, I have morons calling me a dope and flexing their mental muscle on submarine classes.
> 
> Okay.. I give up... you win! Obama is the Greatest president ever in history and has done nothing but make our military stronger from top to bottom with state of the art weapons and subs because Obama LOVES the military and everything about it.  ...Is that what you needed to hear?  Oh... and Hillary is the second greatest person to ever live besides Obama and when she is president, will make the military even bigger and stronger with even better submarines!  ...We good now?
Click to expand...

Stop whining. You took on a topic you know nothing about, which you often do. While doing so you attempted to portray yourself as an expert while crudely insulting anyone who disagreed with your uninformed stupid ideas. You are a typical asshole that tries to intimidate with foul and crude insults and attacks to subsidize your jackassery, ignorance and outright lack of intellectual or academic ability. You are a failed wanna be bully and a stupid fool and have been exposed as such.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that you forgot about the Seawolf class submarine.
> 
> The first one in it's class is called the USS Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Google it sometime.  It's a bit more formidable (and a bit better) than the Ohio class ever thought about being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a whopping *THREE* of them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being replaced with the Virginia Class since 2000 you idiot. Twenty of them have been commissioned and are in service and new ones are being built at a rate of two per year at the present time. Last one was completed eight months ahead of schedule and fifty four million dollars under budget.  We have the largest and most sophisticated submarine force on the planet.
> 
> www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.aspx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just LOVE how Trump transforms anti-military war-protesting liberal miscreant punks into full-fledged four-star military and naval expert know-it-alls!
> 
> So now we have 20 more Virginia-class which must be better than the three Seawolf-class, which is better than the Ohio-class. Well it's comforting to know we have 23 subs to help out the fleet of 20 year old subs that are obsolete.
> 
> ....How many square miles of ocean are there again?
Click to expand...

You just can't admit when you're wrong, can you?


----------



## pismoe

Mornin Camp !!   there is always room for making the USA military more lethal and 'mo betta' .  I really doubt that the lefties in this thread that are throwing out the names of weapons systems really know what they are talking about .   Might be the same with Trump as he just sees what has been done to US military these last 7 years and is appalled by what he sees , same as me .  Anyway Trump says that he will fix the military as he generally says that he wants to rebuild the USA military .  Trump is probably talking to some good conservative Generals and advisors as he decides what he wants to do with USA military .


----------



## Camp

pismoe said:


> Mornin Camp !!   there is always room for making the USA military more lethal and 'mo betta' .  I really doubt that the lefties in this thread that are throwing out the names of weapons systems really know what they are talking about .   Might be the same with Trump as he just sees what has been done to US military these last 7 years and is appalled by what he sees , same as me .  Anyway Trump says that he will fix the military as he generally says that he wants to rebuild the USA military .  Trump is probably talking to some good conservative Generals and advisors as he decides what he wants to do with USA military .


The major setback in the military has been the sequester which has reduced government spending. As far as who spends more and does a better job of building the military, ideology has little if anything to do with it. Democrats want MIC campaign funds and manufacturing facilities operating in their districts and states as much as Republicans. Historically, military funding has done good under both parties, until sequestration came along.
Trump has shown a scary lack of knowledge and misconceptions about the military. I am not sure what Trump and you see that is so appalling. The problem I have with Trump is that he makes these statements but can't back up the rhetoric. Like the poster Boss did about bombers and submarines. Just doom and gloom nonsense to bash the liberals or Obama. We heard the same crap about Clinton and how he was destroying the military. Bush used the military built by Clinton, instigated by Bush 41, and that military destroyed both Afghanistan and Iraq in record times with minimum casualties. Went perfect until Bush turned it into a long term nation building occupation mission. Who the fuck saw that coming?
Today's military is as good or better than it has ever been. If people are going to put out the kind of rhetoric that Trump is putting out they should have to back it up with some factual data. Otherwise it is just a cheap political ploy that insults our current serving military personnel from the bottom grade enlisted persons to the highest grade Generals and Admirals. Trump should answer specifically what he would do differently to make our military stronger and more efficient. Otherwise he is just using national security as a pawn in the game he is playing and the reality show he is staging.


----------



## pismoe

yeah , yeah , yeah Camp .  Like I have said , Mr. Trump says that he will rebuild the military and that's good enough for me and others that support Trump .  Also think that Cruz thinks similar to Trump and if so then that's 2 out of the gaggle that think as I think .  Anyway , we'll see what happens as time goes by .  Current 'generals' are pretty much mrobamas boys .  That would be 'dempsey' and a few others that I can't think of their names at the moment .  I respect and trust the older retired or Generals that have been purged by this regime Camp .


----------



## pismoe

and hey , I sure don't think that I am an expert on military affairs , weapons or anything military .  Course I don't think that lefty supporters of mrobamas military changes are experts either .     I just see military actions like the 'pinprick' bombings that are currently taking place and I disapprove of that kinda tactic in the fight against 'Islamic state' .  Also disapprove of the wussy 'rules of engagement' that have been forced on American soldiers  that are fighting 'Islamic state' and other enemies Camp .


----------



## cereal_killer

Boss said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how right wingers force on everyone what it means to be a Republican/Conservative. Preprogrammed Morons. News flash...libs have some valuable stances/opinions on the issues, adopt them and evolve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't think you have any business whatsoever talking to me about what people want to force on everyone.  I mean... really? ...Do we need to run down the long list of shit you've crammed down our throats like little Mussolinis for the past 8 years?
> 
> Why don't you have a big tall glass of STFU and crawl back under your rock?
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaking me for a Democrat/liberal...they're just as nauseating.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google B-1 Bomber and B-2 Bomber you dope. And what have we decommissioned that hasn't been replaced with something newer and more modern?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey buddy.. I am not a military expert and I don't know jack about subs and bombers other than stuff I read. Someone said something about military spending and I said we need to cut the waste and redundancy, eliminate obsolete programs and increase vet benefits. Next thing I know, I have morons calling me a dope and flexing their mental muscle on submarine classes.
> 
> Okay.. I give up... you win! Obama is the Greatest president ever in history and has done nothing but make our military stronger from top to bottom with state of the art weapons and subs because Obama LOVES the military and everything about it.  ...Is that what you needed to hear?  Oh... and Hillary is the second greatest person to ever live besides Obama and when she is president, will make the military even bigger and stronger with even better submarines!  ...We good now?
Click to expand...


You said that Obama gutted our military and that we are not the biggest and best military in the world anymore.  That's a bit different than cutting waste and redundancy.

Why must it be two extremes?  Obama gutted the military or he is the greatest president ever?  Perhaps he's somewhere in between.  This administration may have implemented some policies which aren't good for the military, but when you make a claim like the military has been gutted, people are likely to question you.  When you then refuse to provide evidence of that claim, or worse, try to use false evidence to back it up....


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google B-1 Bomber and B-2 Bomber you dope. And what have we decommissioned that hasn't been replaced with something newer and more modern?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey buddy.. I am not a military expert and I don't know jack about subs and bombers other than stuff I read. Someone said something about military spending and I said we need to cut the waste and redundancy, eliminate obsolete programs and increase vet benefits. Next thing I know, I have morons calling me a dope and flexing their mental muscle on submarine classes.
> 
> Okay.. I give up... you win! Obama is the Greatest president ever in history and has done nothing but make our military stronger from top to bottom with state of the art weapons and subs because Obama LOVES the military and everything about it.  ...Is that what you needed to hear?  Oh... and Hillary is the second greatest person to ever live besides Obama and when she is president, will make the military even bigger and stronger with even better submarines!  ...We good now?
Click to expand...


If you don't know much about submarines, yoar not a real America.


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... he'll have to lose the GOP nomination first.
Click to expand...


Do you think Trump's going to win?


----------



## Slyhunter

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... he'll have to lose the GOP nomination first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Trump's going to win?
Click to expand...

Trump is going to kick ass.


----------



## ABikerSailor

He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.

What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.
> 
> What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?



I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that. 

I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.


----------



## Slyhunter

<div style='text-align:center'>
<script type='text/javascript' src='https://spshared.5min.com/Scripts/P...=560&height=314&playList=519007953'></script>
<br/>
</div>

My sister found a "aol on" video of Donald taking turns doing his hotel employees jobs. I can't find a version I can paste and copy or a version in youtube 

Found it --> Donald Trump Gets Put to Work - AOL On


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.
> 
> What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.
> 
> I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.
Click to expand...


That's possible, but I think you are attributing planning and calculation to him where it doesn't exist.  That is especially true when some of the 'controversial' things he has said certainly did not need to be said; his comments about Megyn Kelly, saying he'll build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it, saying he has a fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS, these aren't things that needed to be said for any reason pertinent to the presidential race.  Is the country better off talking about Megyn Kelly?  Is the country better off wondering how Trump could get Mexico to pay for a wall, or defeat ISIS?  Are the latter two subjects that were not talked about previous to Trump's comments?

I can certainly agree that he relishes the attention and doesn't mind being controversial.  Whether 'the public is resonating with that' is a different question.  Do you just mean the voting public?  Assuming that you do, wouldn't you think that probably a third or so won't agree with or connect with Trump no matter what he says because he's running GOP?  Then there are those polls which place Trump as both the most liked and most disliked candidate among the GOP field.  I think Trump is resonating with a segment of the public, one which, perhaps, is growing, but I think he is probably a ways away from having even a majority of the voting public behind him.  Obviously as much speculation on my part as yours, just IMO.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.
> 
> What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.
> 
> I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's possible, but I think you are attributing planning and calculation to him where it doesn't exist.  That is especially true when some of the 'controversial' things he has said certainly did not need to be said; his comments about Megyn Kelly, saying he'll build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it, saying he has a fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS, these aren't things that needed to be said for any reason pertinent to the presidential race.  Is the country better off talking about Megyn Kelly?  Is the country better off wondering how Trump could get Mexico to pay for a wall, or defeat ISIS?  Are the latter two subjects that were not talked about previous to Trump's comments?
> 
> I can certainly agree that he relishes the attention and doesn't mind being controversial.  Whether 'the public is resonating with that' is a different question.  Do you just mean the voting public?  Assuming that you do, wouldn't you think that probably a third or so won't agree with or connect with Trump no matter what he says because he's running GOP?  Then there are those polls which place Trump as both the most liked and most disliked candidate among the GOP field.  I think Trump is resonating with a segment of the public, one which, perhaps, is growing, but I think he is probably a ways away from having even a majority of the voting public behind him.  Obviously as much speculation on my part as yours, just IMO.
Click to expand...


Well first of all, anything he said about Megyn Kelly was richly deserved. She ambushed him with a biased and hackish question full of no-context remarks he made. Now I think the man has made it clear, respect him and play nice or you're not going to like what happens next. I think the GOP needs those kind of testicles to take on the radical liberal left. 

His plan to have Mexico pay for the wall is so very simple and it's, as he says, 100% guaranteed. In fact, he says they will probably just pay for it without any question... but if they don't, we tack on some heavy trade tariffs on their products coming in to the US and they will pay that way. One way or another, they will pay for the wall.... and they should. 

And on ISIS... I see nothing wrong with his idea at all... it's what we should have done to begin with and what many were clamoring for us to do... take the damn oil. Stop pussyfooting around with these cats and hit them where it hurts... their oil wells. You can't fund Jihad with sand. Yes... it's a ballsy statement... Much like Reagan vs. Iranian hostage takers... they didn't hesitate to release the hostages as soon as he was sworn in. There is a reason for that. 

But again... back to the statements which have drawn so much fire... First it was about illegal immigrants who are mostly criminals flooding across our borders, killing, raping and robbing innocent American citizens. He said what he said, the media ran with it for nearly two weeks, trying their best to smear him... FAIL.  His support began to skyrocket. Then his comment about McCain... juxtaposed with his vocal dissatisfaction of how we are treating our veterans like second-class citizens. Again, the media runs with it for a week or so trying to smear him... FAIL AGAIN! He continues to surge in the polls. It's almost as if he has calculated it.... maybe not, but he sure does have a pretty good batting average going on this stuff.


----------



## Slyhunter

Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.
> 
> What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.
> 
> I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's possible, but I think you are attributing planning and calculation to him where it doesn't exist.  That is especially true when some of the 'controversial' things he has said certainly did not need to be said; his comments about Megyn Kelly, saying he'll build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it, saying he has a fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS, these aren't things that needed to be said for any reason pertinent to the presidential race.  Is the country better off talking about Megyn Kelly?  Is the country better off wondering how Trump could get Mexico to pay for a wall, or defeat ISIS?  Are the latter two subjects that were not talked about previous to Trump's comments?
> 
> I can certainly agree that he relishes the attention and doesn't mind being controversial.  Whether 'the public is resonating with that' is a different question.  Do you just mean the voting public?  Assuming that you do, wouldn't you think that probably a third or so won't agree with or connect with Trump no matter what he says because he's running GOP?  Then there are those polls which place Trump as both the most liked and most disliked candidate among the GOP field.  I think Trump is resonating with a segment of the public, one which, perhaps, is growing, but I think he is probably a ways away from having even a majority of the voting public behind him.  Obviously as much speculation on my part as yours, just IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well first of all, anything he said about Megyn Kelly was richly deserved. She ambushed him with a biased and hackish question full of no-context remarks he made. Now I think the man has made it clear, respect him and play nice or you're not going to like what happens next. I think the GOP needs those kind of testicles to take on the radical liberal left.
> 
> His plan to have Mexico pay for the wall is so very simple and it's, as he says, 100% guaranteed. In fact, he says they will probably just pay for it without any question... but if they don't, we tack on some heavy trade tariffs on their products coming in to the US and they will pay that way. One way or another, they will pay for the wall.... and they should.
> 
> And on ISIS... I see nothing wrong with his idea at all... it's what we should have done to begin with and what many were clamoring for us to do... take the damn oil. Stop pussyfooting around with these cats and hit them where it hurts... their oil wells. You can't fund Jihad with sand. Yes... it's a ballsy statement... Much like Reagan vs. Iranian hostage takers... they didn't hesitate to release the hostages as soon as he was sworn in. There is a reason for that.
> 
> But again... back to the statements which have drawn so much fire... First it was about illegal immigrants who are mostly criminals flooding across our borders, killing, raping and robbing innocent American citizens. He said what he said, the media ran with it for nearly two weeks, trying their best to smear him... FAIL.  His support began to skyrocket. Then his comment about McCain... juxtaposed with his vocal dissatisfaction of how we are treating our veterans like second-class citizens. Again, the media runs with it for a week or so trying to smear him... FAIL AGAIN! He continues to surge in the polls. It's almost as if he has calculated it.... maybe not, but he sure does have a pretty good batting average going on this stuff.
Click to expand...


We're still more than a year away from the election.  Trump has been leading the GOP polls I've seen so far, but I have yet to see him winning any polls overall rather than just among GOP candidates.  I think saying the public resonates with Trump is a fairly strong exaggeration.  

As far as his 'solutions', they sound like so much bluster to me.  Mexico will build a wall?  Why, because he says so?  Of course he's got an out, we'll impose tariffs.  Maybe that will work, I don't know the numbers for Mexican importation to the US and the actual cost of building a border wall, particularly an effective border wall.  Honestly, I've found the idea of building a wall to be bluster whoever is saying it.

Take ISIS's oil?  So we are going to invade some more countries and take over this time?  Expansionist, colonialism, whatever you want to call it, we'll just invade Iraq (yet again), Syria, maybe Iran or Jordan or Turkey should ISIS gain a foothold in those countries?  And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?

Trump seems to be enamored with bold yet simple 'plans', few if any of which are likely to ever occur even should he end up as president.  Do we need to talk about things which are probably never going to happen and would likely not have the outcome imagined anyway?


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.



Nope... no need for war. 

I don't know, maybe people are dumb and don't get this but... 

Mexico depends on us. 

Like, Big Time! 

They WILL pay. 100% Guaranteed.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... no need for war.
> 
> I don't know, maybe people are dumb and don't get this but...
> 
> Mexico depends on us.
> 
> Like, Big Time!
> 
> They WILL pay. 100% Guaranteed.
Click to expand...


That's an easy guarantee to make, considering the unlikelihood of it ever being put to the test.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> We're still more than a year away from the election.  Trump has been leading the GOP polls I've seen so far, but I have yet to see him winning any polls overall rather than just among GOP candidates.  I think saying the public resonates with Trump is a fairly strong exaggeration.
> 
> As far as his 'solutions', they sound like so much bluster to me.  Mexico will build a wall?  Why, because he says so?  Of course he's got an out, we'll impose tariffs.  Maybe that will work, I don't know the numbers for Mexican importation to the US and the actual cost of building a border wall, particularly an effective border wall.  Honestly, I've found the idea of building a wall to be bluster whoever is saying it.
> 
> Take ISIS's oil?  So we are going to invade some more countries and take over this time?  Expansionist, colonialism, whatever you want to call it, we'll just invade Iraq (yet again), Syria, maybe Iran or Jordan or Turkey should ISIS gain a foothold in those countries?  And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?
> 
> Trump seems to be enamored with bold yet simple 'plans', few if any of which are likely to ever occur even should he end up as president.  Do we need to talk about things which are probably never going to happen and would likely not have the outcome imagined anyway?



Few points... 

You're right, we're still a LONG LONG way from election time. Lots can change. 

*Mexico will build a wall?  Why, because he says so?*

He didn't say Mexico will build a wall... We'll build it... they'll pay for it. 
*Why?* Because they depend on the United States and our trade dollars. 

*Honestly, I've found the idea of building a wall to be bluster whoever is saying it.*

I don't think Trump is blustering. I think he intends to build the damn wall. 

*Take ISIS's oil? So we are going to invade some more countries and take over this time?*

Nope. Just the oil wells which fund ISIS. We should have taken the oil the last time. 

*Expansionist, colonialism, whatever you want to call it...*

I call it "national security" and defending yourself against an enemy who declared war on you 20 years ago and has been at war with you since. 

*And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?*

Maybe so... Shell, Exxon and Mobil will need personnel to pump the oil and stuff. We could rename Iraq... call it Trumpistan!  

*Trump seems to be enamored with bold yet simple 'plans'*

Yes... _Bold colors and no pale pastels._  Hmmm... who said that again? 

*Do we need to talk about things which are probably never going to happen and would likely not have the outcome imagined anyway?*

Only if you need to further demonstrate your defeatist attitude and cynical negativism. I'm fine either way... we can talk about it or not talk about it. Many of the things Reagan proposed were said to be "impossible" and "could never happen in a million years." In fact, when he walked away from the SALT talks, liberals screamed that he was going to start WWIII by pissing off the Soviets.  He ended the Cold War. You see, he didn't *believe* that bullshit. He wasn't a defeatist. Trump... warts and all, is also not a defeatist.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP."  He said he would look  at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.


What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time.  Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.

Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.



> “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....
> 
> ....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News



But he's* not *talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?

*Of course he was.* This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.

Deny it and I'll just quote him again.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> I call it "national security" and defending yourself against an enemy who declared war on you 20 years ago and has been at war with you since.



Going to a foreign land, occupying it indefinitely and stripping it natural resources is 'national security'? Has that ever worked?



> *And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?*
> 
> Maybe so... Shell, Exxon and Mobil will need personnel to pump the oil and stuff. We could rename Iraq... call it Trumpistan!



Do you understand how expensive this would be? How much more conflict it would cause? How many lives it would cost? How would Iraq care for itself if we strip if of its most valuable natural resources?

It would take a generation to pump all the oil out of that country. And in the meantime, we're responsible for every aspect of its national security, its people, everything. We'd be minting jihadists by the day, with our troops in a 30 year war in foreign land.

And that's just Iraq. *You're also insisting we do the same thing to Syria and Iran. Y*ou're talking about a 3 or 4 front war that will last a generation or two. And cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Many of them ours. With the people in every region we seize against us.

What would be their motivation for supporting us in anyway? After all, we're merely there to 'take their oil'. They don't see any of the revenue from their own natural resources. With their people held in generations long military occupation. You're begging for massive insurrections.

And all this assumes that NO other country will become involved. Which is fantastically unlikely. Meaning that we'd be facing the troops, or at the very least the weapons of other nations in the region in addition to all the people.

Its the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard.



> Only if you need to further demonstrate your defeatist attitude and cynical negativism.


Or....acknowledge history, consequence, or reality. You don't just occupy 3 countries and then nothing bad ever happens.

Or do you expect the Iraqi's to 'greet us as liberators' as the Bush administration promised. How'd that work out again? And I'm sure the Iranians, a 30 year enemy would just line the streets with rose pedals when we bomb their people and take their oil.

Right?

This is why I don't want a conservative at the helm. They genuinely want *never ending war*. And if we don't have it, they'll gladly start it.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP."  He said he would look  at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time.  Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.
> 
> Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....
> 
> ....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he's* not *talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?
> 
> *Of course he was.* This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.
> 
> Deny it and I'll just quote him again.
Click to expand...


Please articulate for us, if you can, what are the specific problems you have with Trump's position?  I ask this because, to me anyway, it seems like he was being reasonable and rational... we should look at the body of work... consider the benefits PP provides to many women.  If you are opposed to that, it's fine, but you need to tell us why. 

I don't personally feel our federal tax dollars should fund PP at all... that is my opinion. They may very well provide great services for women but that doesn't mean I think we should all pay for that. We certainly shouldn't be paying for abortions... or worse, parting out fetuses. 

And my point about Congress funding things is, the president only signs bills sent by Congress, he doesn't write the legislation. He can talk about what he wants to do or would like to do, but Congress ultimately has the final say... Unless of course, you're Obama. 

That said, the people have clearly spoken when it comes to securing the border. If Trump wins, his party will introduce legislation in accordance with his plan and Congress will pass it.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Do you understand how expensive this would be? How much more conflict it would cause? How many lives it would cost? How would Iraq care for itself if we strip if of its most valuable natural resources?



It wouldn't be that expensive... oil is pretty valuable. 
I'm not concerned about "conflict" as long as Americans are having their heads sawed off. 
Also not worried about lives lost or how much it costs... or how Iraq takes care of itself. 
I'm only concerned about defeating an enemy who has been at war with us for 20 years.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP."  He said he would look  at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time.  Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.
> 
> Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....
> 
> ....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he's* not *talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?
> 
> *Of course he was.* This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.
> 
> Deny it and I'll just quote him again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please articulate for us, if you can, what are the specific problems you have with Trump's position?
Click to expand...

\

I have no problems with Trump's position. *Its the position of Planned Parenthood itself, which thanked Trump. *

No federal funding for abortion. Federal funding for the women's health services that makes up the overwhelming majority of the work that PP does.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Conservatives on the other hand have taken a view that is much less sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, insisting that all federal funding be cut and that the funds be given to other women's health providers. A stark contrast to Trump's position. So we have conservatives on one side, and Trump on the other.

But Trump is a 'true conservative'?

Um, no. I find it amusing to see how far conservatives will bend their own positions to match whatever comes out of that man's mouth.


----------



## Amazon

I honestly hope that Trump wins the Republican nomination. I was pulling for Sarah Palin's camp for the same reasons.

Chances are, his nomination would result in a landslide victory for the other side, and that would prompt whatever intelligent, responsible Republicans are left to re-evaluate their party.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Slyhunter said:


> Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.


Ooooh, such saber-rattling!!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand how expensive this would be? How much more conflict it would cause? How many lives it would cost? How would Iraq care for itself if we strip if of its most valuable natural resources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be that expensive... oil is pretty valuable.
Click to expand...

\

We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost? 

Remembering of course that the people of Syria, Iraq, Iran and all the insurgent groups that we create by invading and occupying their land for at least a generation or two *will be against us. *

As we're only their to strip their land of natural resources. 


> I'm not concerned about "conflict" as long as Americans are having their heads sawed off.



I know you're not concerned about conflict. But rational people are. These are actual lives that are lost. These are actual insurgent groups that our conflicts create. And as 911 demonstrated, this shit doesn't stay in the overseas theater. It spills over into neighboring countries and around the world. 

This is roughly 100 million people you're talking about holding in military occupation for at least a  generation. How do you think they would respond to it? Snuggles and butterfly kisses?



> Also not worried about lives lost or how much it costs... or how Iraq takes care of itself.



I get that. But a rational person is. As to do otherwise is an international war crime. In addition to being spectacularly stupid. As you burn good will for the US, damage our relationships with our allies, kill millions of people, and fuels insurgencies against us. 

Do you honestly think that telling 100,000,000 people to go fuck themselves and we don't care if they live or die *is going to have no consequences?* The starving people, the burned cities, the heaping dead are gonna be all over the news. The public outcry is going to be overwhelming both domestically and internationally.

There will almost certainly be war crimes tribunals in the Hague. Which will almost certainly lead to sanctions from foreign countries, including many of our allies. Which in turn will damage our economy. 

And of course, its all going to act as recruiting footage for insurgents and radicalized muslims, motivating more attacks and more troops against us. Its a recruitment video created by us for our enemies to use against us.

Meaning more suicide bombings on our troops, more attacks on our allies, more subway bombings, more planes being bombed, more mass shootings on our military facilities, more attacks on our homeland. 

And you don't even care, do you?

This is why I don't want a conservative in charge. Not only don't they factor in the consequences of their actions.....they genuinely don't give a shit.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost?



There isn't going to be a 30-year war. They can't afford a war without their oil. 

Again... won't cost that much... oil is very valuable.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> The starving people, the burned cities, the heaping dead are gonna be all over the news. The public outcry is going to be overwhelming both domestically and internationally.



Wahhh... wahhhhhhhh.... whahhhhhhhh! 

Yes, let's all bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad guys eventually go away!


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> There will almost certainly be war crimes tribunals in the Hague.



I should hope if we don't kill the sick bastards that are sawing off heads and drowning women and children in cages, some one WILL try them for "war crimes".


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> And of course, its all going to act as recruiting footage for insurgents and radicalized muslims...



Yes, because, as of now... they _*aren't*_ doing that... right?


----------



## HUGGY

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP."  He said he would look  at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time.  Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.
> 
> Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....
> 
> ....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he's* not *talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?
> 
> *Of course he was.* This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.
> 
> Deny it and I'll just quote him again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please articulate for us, if you can, what are the specific problems you have with Trump's position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> I have no problems with Trump's position. *Its the position of Planned Parenthood itself, which thanked Trump. *
> 
> No federal funding for abortion. Federal funding for the women's health services that makes up the overwhelming majority of the work that PP does.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Conservatives on the other hand have taken a view that is much less sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, insisting that all federal funding be cut and that the funds be given to other women's health providers. A stark contrast to Trump's position. So we have conservatives on one side, and Trump on the other.
> 
> But Trump is a 'true conservative'?
> 
> Um, no. I find it amusing to see how far conservatives will bend their own positions to match whatever comes out of that man's mouth.
Click to expand...


How do you know that thing on Donald's head isn't an alien and just using Trump like a ventriloquist? Maybe it's just some crazy ET talking.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't going to be a 30-year war. They can't afford a war without their oil.
> 
> Again... won't cost that much... oil is very valuable.
Click to expand...


Oil isn't a handbag that you pick up and throw in your trunk. It takes decades to pump it all. You have no idea what you're suggesting we do, do you?


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The starving people, the burned cities, the heaping dead are gonna be all over the news. The public outcry is going to be overwhelming both domestically and internationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wahhh... wahhhhhhhh.... whahhhhhhhh!
> 
> Yes, let's all bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad guys eventually go away!
Click to expand...


Ignoring the consequences doesn't make them go away. Pretending that we're going to be 'greeted as liberators' doesn't mean that we are.

And leaving 100,000,000 people to starve in the rubble of the cities we bombed out will have enormous consequences.

This isn't an episode of the A-Team. There are no commercial breaks. And if we commit these atrocities, there will be an enormous cost to us. In reputation, in war crimes tribunals, in our own lives, in damage to our economy, in creating the very insurgent groups we seek to combat.

Its stupid, all the way down.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> And you don't even care, do you?



No, it's actually YOU and Hillary who doesn't care. You want to stick your head in the sand and hope the bad guys go away. You want to ignore the people being brutally executed every day, the women and children being drowned alive... doesn't bother you or Hillary in the least... gotta fight for your right to kill your own babies, I guess?


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will almost certainly be war crimes tribunals in the Hague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should hope if we don't kill the sick bastards that are sawing off heads and drowning women and children in cages, some one WILL try them for "war crimes".
Click to expand...


War crimes against us. As occupying a country and leaving its people to starve is a war crime. An atrocity. If we did as you suggest,  we'd be guilty of every crime we were accused of. 

Do you think conviction for our leaders of war crimes, crimes against humanity and atrocities would have no consequence? That the inevitable economic sanctions that follow would have no consequence?

Your proposal is layer upon layer upon layer of stupid. With enormous, catastrophic negative consequences that you're both unaware of and could care less about.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't going to be a 30-year war. They can't afford a war without their oil.
> 
> Again... won't cost that much... oil is very valuable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil isn't a handbag that you pick up and throw in your trunk. It takes decades to pump it all. You have no idea what you're suggesting we do, do you?
Click to expand...


I don't give a damn if it takes 100 years to pump it all, to be honest. The more the better. 

There won't be a war for 30 years, they don't have the money without the oil.


----------



## hortysir

When he gets to 35 SELL!!


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will almost certainly be war crimes tribunals in the Hague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should hope if we don't kill the sick bastards that are sawing off heads and drowning women and children in cages, some one WILL try them for "war crimes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War crimes against us. As occupying a country and leaving its people to starve is a war crime. An atrocity. If we did as you suggest,  we'd be guilty of every crime we were accused of.
> 
> Do you think conviction for our leaders of war crimes, crimes against humanity and atrocities would have no consequence? That the inevitable economic sanctions that follow would have no consequence?
> 
> Your proposal is layer upon layer upon layer of stupid. With enormous, catastrophic negative consequences that you're both unaware of and could care less about.
Click to expand...


You're not going to try anybody for "war crimes" because they strategically confiscated ISIS oil supply.   Sorry.... that's a legitimate tactic of war and doesn't violate any of the Geneva Convention.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't even care, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's actually YOU and Hillary who doesn't care. You want to stick your head in the sand and hope the bad guys go away. You want to ignore the people being brutally executed every day, the women and children being drowned alive... doesn't bother you or Hillary in the least... gotta fight for your right to kill your own babies, I guess?
Click to expand...


Hillary hasn't suggested any of this. Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil. 

Where you have no concern nor even awareness of the consequences. The massive insurgencies you'd create. The 100,000,000 people that would be against us as we did so. The decades it would take to pump all the oil. The war crimes that would be levied against us as we let the people of the land we occupy starve. 

And remember, this all assumes that NO other country would get involved. Which is ridiculously unlikely. Do you think Russia isn't going to make hay with our foreign policy blunder? That China won't? That other Muslim nations are going to sit back and watch us occupy not 1 but THREE Muslim nations? Not simply occupy, but strip them of their resources and leave their people to starve?

These are all factors that a real leader would have to take into consideration. And your ilk don't think about at all.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> As occupying a country and leaving its people to starve is a war crime.



Actually... NO, it's NOT.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't going to be a 30-year war. They can't afford a war without their oil.
> 
> Again... won't cost that much... oil is very valuable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil isn't a handbag that you pick up and throw in your trunk. It takes decades to pump it all. You have no idea what you're suggesting we do, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn if it takes 100 years to pump it all, to be honest. The more the better.
Click to expand...


And ever minute of that century, we're at war. As the people who we are occupying, who we don't care if they live or die, are against us.

100,000,000 people that you've got against you. Plus the millions more recruited to their cause with our occupation, stripping their land of resources, and leaving them to starve. 

I know you don't care about consequences or cost. But a rational person would.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.



Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone. Would we likely use bombs? Probably. Would we likely have to put boots on the ground? Certainly. 

And your "ilk" wants to be indifferent and simply ignore the problem... you want to stick your heads in the sand and pretend the bad guys will go away. When MORE Americans are killed, you want to sit there being smug with your hands thrown up in the air saying "at this point, what difference does it make?"  THAT is your "solution" and it doesn't work.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As occupying a country and leaving its people to starve is a war crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually... NO, it's NOT.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is. And one among many. Wanton destruction and appropriation of property is a war crime. Which you insist we do. 

You haven't thought this shit through. You're ignoring every consequence and cost. And then laughably insisting that because you don't care about them, they don't exist.

Um, that's not how reality works. The consequences occur regardless of if you consider them important.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> And ever minute of that century, we're at war.



No, we're not at war if our enemy is out of money to buy bullets and bombs because we've taken their cash resource. Within a few months, ISIS would fold like a cheap K-mart tent. AND... bet you dollars to doughnuts, any radical muslim country which has oil will think long and hard about jumping on the US.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Actually, it is.



No, it's not. Have you never read the Geneva Conventions?


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> You're ignoring every consequence and cost.



No I'm really not. The cost will not be a factor because the oil supply will more than pay for the cost. The consequence will be a cheap source of oil for us and elimination of an enemy who has been at war with us for 20 years.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
Click to expand...


Nothing at all, huh?



> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com



You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*

*Do you?*

Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring every consequence and cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm really not. The cost will not be a factor because the oil supply will more than pay for the cost. The consequence will be a cheap source of oil for us and elimination of an enemy who has been at war with us for 20 years.
Click to expand...


You really are? The cost to us to occupy a hostile country for a CENTURY is how much? You don't have a fucking clue. Nor do you care. Its not a consideration of yours.

*Any rational person would be immediately concerned about this. You ignore it.*

How about THREE hostile countries? Syria, Iraq and Iran? Again, you don't have a slightest clue. Not the the nearest order of magnitude. Your response to all of the costs is 'oil is valuable'.

How about the insurgencies that this would inevitably create? 100,000,000 people left to starve as we militarily occupy them and strip their land of resources? How do you think they respond?

You think you're not concerned with conflict. You don't think about it, you don't factor it in. You don't care.

*Any rational person would be immediately concerned about this. You ignore it.*

How about the war crimes of wanton destruction and the seizure of property? How about the war crimes of leaving the population to starve? You're not concerned with this either? You ignore. '

*Closing your eyes and pretending that consequences don't exist is not a policy position. Its an excuse for it. *


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
Click to expand...


WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> The cost to us to occupy a hostile country for a CENTURY is how much?



It's _*NOTHING*_ if you pay for it with the oil you pump out.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> How about the insurgencies that this would inevitably create?



Yes, because NOW, there is NO insurgency... right?  Everything is hunky dory over there!


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> How about the war crimes of wanton destruction and the seizure of property?



That's NOT a war crime... that is a circumstance of war.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> How about the war crimes of leaving the population to starve?



Not that we would ever do that, but also... NOT a *WAR CRIME!*


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> How do you think they respond?



I think that when they run out of money and begin to starve, they will become contrite and stop waging Jihad in return for humanitarian aid. That's what I think will be the response.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
Click to expand...


Laughing...this was your claim:



> "Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone."
> 
> Boss



This was Trump:



> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015



*You didn't even know your own candidates position.* And even when presented with a direct quote WITH VIDEO of your candidate contradicting you, you still can't admit you were wrong.

You'll even ignore Trump on Trump's position. At this point you're just a caricature.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the war crimes of leaving the population to starve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that we would ever do that, but also... NOT a *WAR CRIME!*
Click to expand...


Occupying a country and letting the people starve? Most definitely a war crime. Wanton violation and seizure of property? Most definitely a war crime.

You don't even know your own candidates position on the issues. Let alone what constitutes a war crime.

And if we're not going to let the people starve, but we're going to strip their land of natural resources, where pray tell, is the money coming from?

Laughing......you haven't even thought about these issues. They're not even on your radar. For any rational person, they would be.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> How about THREE hostile countries? Syria, Iraq and Iran?



What about them? He didn't say we're going to take over those countries... He said we're going to take the oil fields ISIS controls.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> *You didn't even know your own candidates position.* And even when presented with a direct quote WITH VIDEO of your candidate contradicting you, you still can't admit you were wrong.



He didn't contradict me... He said what I said he said and not what you claim he said.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about THREE hostile countries? Syria, Iraq and Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about them? He didn't say we're going to take over those countries... He said we're going to take the oil fields ISIS controls.
Click to expand...



No, he said he was going to bomb the hell out of those oil fields. And then he was going to make a ring around them. And then he was going to have Big Oil rebuild them.

How much would the rebuilding cost? How would you deal with the inevitable insurgency? How much would the 'ring' cost? How long would it take to drain the oil fields? How would we get the oil to market?  How would these countries support themselves when cut off from their own natural resources?

You don't know. You don't give a shit. And that's why a conservative shouldn't be in charge. As they never do.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the war crimes of leaving the population to starve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that we would ever do that, but also... NOT a *WAR CRIME!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Occupying a country and letting the people starve? Most definitely a war crime. Wanton violation and seizure of property? Most definitely a war crime.
> 
> You don't even know your own candidates position on the issues. Let alone what constitutes a war crime.
> 
> And if we're not going to let the people starve, but we're going to strip their land of natural resources, where pray tell, is the money coming from?
> 
> Laughing......you haven't even thought about these issues. They're not even on your radar. For any rational person, they would be.
Click to expand...


Nope and Nope. Not a war crime. 

What you are going to need to do is go find the part in the Geneva Convention which specifically says this is a war crime. You can't because it's not. Sorry!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
Click to expand...


Where exactly do you think ISIS controls oil fields?  Where do you think the supposed 'caliphate' of ISIS is located?  Are you aware of where the fighting involving ISIS is going on?  Iraq, Syria, at least one attack linked to ISIS in Turkey (perhaps more, I haven't checked).  ISIS is not a nation for us to invade, despite their rhetoric about creating a 'caliphate'.  They have taken control of areas in two countries, Iraq and Syria, that I know of.  They have not taken over either country nor even consolidated their control; supposedly they have been leaving some areas open to be retaken and are still running more of a mobile conflict than creating their own nation.

Any oil fields controlled by ISIS almost certainly reside in either Iraq or Syria.  So bombing oil fields under the control of ISIS means bombing in those countries.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about THREE hostile countries? Syria, Iraq and Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about them? He didn't say we're going to take over those countries... He said we're going to take the oil fields ISIS controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, he said he was going to bomb the hell out of those oil fields. And then he was going to make a ring around them. And then he was going to have Big Oil rebuild them.
> 
> How much would the rebuilding cost? How would you deal with the inevitable insurgency? How would these countries support themselves when cut off from their own natural resources?
> 
> You don't know. You don't give a shit. And that's why a conservative shouldn't be in charge. As they never do.
Click to expand...


Again... bombing an oil field is not bombing a country or taking over a country. Sorry.... not what he said. 

Rebuilding would cost nothing, the oil more than pays for it. There is no insurgency if they don't have money to buy guns and bullets. What are they going to do, come at us with ROCKS? 

I personally don't care how these countries support themselves... they should have considered that before supporting radical Islamic terrorism. That's THEIR problem now... our mission is to eliminate the enemy.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't even know your own candidates position.* And even when presented with a direct quote WITH VIDEO of your candidate contradicting you, you still can't admit you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't contradict me... He said what I said he said and not what you claim he said.
Click to expand...

Obvious delusional nonsense. This is what you said:



> "Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone."
> 
> Boss



This was Trump said:



> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015



Like his planned parenthood comments, I'm in the lovely position of merely offer the actual quotes. And you instantly lose.

This is why you're a caricature. Even when your explicitly, obviously, laughably contradicted by your own candidate.....you ignore it and claim it never happened.

You can't teach that kind of delusion. But you can point and laugh at it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to us to occupy a hostile country for a CENTURY is how much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's _*NOTHING*_ if you pay for it with the oil you pump out.
Click to expand...


Considering your lack of knowledge about the military shown earlier in discussion about our submarines, perhaps making declarations like this is something you should reconsider.  Do you have any estimates of the actual cost of a century of war and the profits from the oil fields controlled by ISIS?

This, of course, does not take into account the cost in lives, the cost in international relations, even the cost in support at home.

EDIT : To be clear, this is about the hypothetical you and Skylar are involved in.  I'm not taking a stand against any bombing of oil fields controlled by ISIS, that may well be a good tactic.  Taking over those oil fields I am less on board with.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly do you think ISIS controls oil fields?  Where do you think the supposed 'caliphate' of ISIS is located?  Are you aware of where the fighting involving ISIS is going on?  Iraq, Syria, at least one attack linked to ISIS in Turkey (perhaps more, I haven't checked).  ISIS is not a nation for us to invade, despite their rhetoric about creating a 'caliphate'.  They have taken control of areas in two countries, Iraq and Syria, that I know of.  They have not taken over either country nor even consolidated their control; supposedly they have been leaving some areas open to be retaken and are still running more of a mobile conflict than creating their own nation.
> 
> Any oil fields controlled by ISIS almost certainly reside in either Iraq or Syria.  So bombing oil fields under the control of ISIS means bombing in those countries.
Click to expand...


Now you're jumping through hoops to INFER things that weren't said.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Like his planned parenthood comments, I'm in the lovely position of merely offer the actual quotes. And you instantly lose.



well no... you're quoting him but he doesn't say anything about bombing Iraq, Syria or Iran or taking over their countries. It's not there... he never said that. So it is YOU who is losing.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about THREE hostile countries? Syria, Iraq and Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about them? He didn't say we're going to take over those countries... He said we're going to take the oil fields ISIS controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, he said he was going to bomb the hell out of those oil fields. And then he was going to make a ring around them. And then he was going to have Big Oil rebuild them.
> 
> How much would the rebuilding cost? How would you deal with the inevitable insurgency? How would these countries support themselves when cut off from their own natural resources?
> 
> You don't know. You don't give a shit. And that's why a conservative shouldn't be in charge. As they never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... bombing an oil field is not bombing a country or taking over a country. Sorry.... not what he said.
Click to expand...


Again, look at your claim: 



> "Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone."
> 
> Boss



*You're ignoring yourself now, desperately backpedaling from your own hapless bullshit. *Not only did Trump talk about bombing, he said he'd bomb the hell out of those oil fields.

*You didn't even know the position of your own candidate. *You are masterfully, desperately ignorant. And the perfect Trump supplicant.


----------



## Faun

Amazon said:


> I honestly hope that Trump wins the Republican nomination. I was pulling for Sarah Palin's camp for the same reasons.
> 
> Chances are, his nomination would result in a landslide victory for the other side, and that would prompt whatever intelligent, responsible Republicans are left to re-evaluate their party.


Republicans are already abandoning that party in droves. They'll still vote Republican, but few will admit they're still Republican. That party has become a national embarrassment.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ilk. Your ilk that have proposed bombing Iran and taking their oil. Bombing Syria and taking their oil. Bombing Iraq and taking their oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly do you think ISIS controls oil fields?  Where do you think the supposed 'caliphate' of ISIS is located?  Are you aware of where the fighting involving ISIS is going on?  Iraq, Syria, at least one attack linked to ISIS in Turkey (perhaps more, I haven't checked).  ISIS is not a nation for us to invade, despite their rhetoric about creating a 'caliphate'.  They have taken control of areas in two countries, Iraq and Syria, that I know of.  They have not taken over either country nor even consolidated their control; supposedly they have been leaving some areas open to be retaken and are still running more of a mobile conflict than creating their own nation.
> 
> Any oil fields controlled by ISIS almost certainly reside in either Iraq or Syria.  So bombing oil fields under the control of ISIS means bombing in those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're jumping through hoops to INFER things that weren't said.
Click to expand...


You claimed Trump never said anything about bombing.  Skylar then provided a quote from Trump in which he specifically advocates bombing.  Then you make a comment about oil fields not translating to Iraq, Syria and Iran.  The oil fields controlled by ISIS are located in Iraq and Syria (I'll give you Iran, I'm unaware of ISIS controlling territory or oil fields in that nation).

What hoops am I jumping through to infer what?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to us to occupy a hostile country for a CENTURY is how much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's _*NOTHING*_ if you pay for it with the oil you pump out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering your lack of knowledge about the military shown earlier in discussion about our submarines, perhaps making declarations like this is something you should reconsider.  Do you have any estimates of the actual cost of a century of war and the profits from the oil fields controlled by ISIS?
> 
> This, of course, does not take into account the cost in lives, the cost in international relations, even the cost in support at home.
> 
> EDIT : To be clear, this is about the hypothetical you and Skylar are involved in.  I'm not taking a stand against any bombing of oil fields controlled by ISIS, that may well be a good tactic.  Taking over those oil fields I am less on board with.
Click to expand...


Well first of all, it doesn't matter about cost. We have to defeat enemies at war with us when they are killing American citizens... plain and simple... doesn't matter how much that costs. 

Second... it's not going to "cost" a damn thing... the OIL will pay for it. In fact, we'll come out ahead. As far as who likes us or who likes what we are doing... don't really give two shits and I don't think Trump does either.


----------



## Skylar

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like his planned parenthood comments, I'm in the lovely position of merely offer the actual quotes. And you instantly lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well no... you're quoting him but he doesn't say anything about bombing Iraq, Syria or Iran or taking over their countries. It's not there... he never said that. So it is YOU who is losing.
Click to expand...


Why, yes. I am. You said Trump never expressed support for funding Planned Parenthood. Here's Trump contradicting you:



> "[T]the biggest problem I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation,” he said. “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government.”
> 
> But he continued by saying he wouldn't necessarily defund the organization.
> 
> “If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News



Boom. You lose. And on Trump contradicting you about bombing anyone:



> "Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone."
> 
> Boss



This was Trump said:



> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015



You know how else I can tell? You're desperately scrubbing any of these quotes from your replies. 

Laughing...as if by omitting them from your reply, none of us can actually read them.

Sigh.....you can't fix stupid.


----------



## Skylar

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly do you think ISIS controls oil fields?  Where do you think the supposed 'caliphate' of ISIS is located?  Are you aware of where the fighting involving ISIS is going on?  Iraq, Syria, at least one attack linked to ISIS in Turkey (perhaps more, I haven't checked).  ISIS is not a nation for us to invade, despite their rhetoric about creating a 'caliphate'.  They have taken control of areas in two countries, Iraq and Syria, that I know of.  They have not taken over either country nor even consolidated their control; supposedly they have been leaving some areas open to be retaken and are still running more of a mobile conflict than creating their own nation.
> 
> Any oil fields controlled by ISIS almost certainly reside in either Iraq or Syria.  So bombing oil fields under the control of ISIS means bombing in those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're jumping through hoops to INFER things that weren't said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed Trump never said anything about bombing.  Skylar then provided a quote from Trump in which he specifically advocates bombing.  Then you make a comment about oil fields not translating to Iraq, Syria and Iran.  The oil fields controlled by ISIS are located in Iraq and Syria (I'll give you Iran, I'm unaware of ISIS controlling territory or oil fields in that nation).
> 
> What hoops am I jumping through to infer what?
Click to expand...


Not just bombing. Boss cited the oil fields held by ISIS. And Trump advocated bombing the same oil fields held by ISIS.

*Boss didn't even know his own candidate's positions.* Let alone any of the myriad of consequences that would come from the stupid, stupid shit that Trump is demanding we do.

You can't teach Boss' kind of willful ignorance. That's something that has to be carefully cultivated over generations.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: You don't think bombing Iraqi oil fields which are now in the control of ISIS is going to anger huge numbers of people?
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly do you think ISIS controls oil fields?  Where do you think the supposed 'caliphate' of ISIS is located?  Are you aware of where the fighting involving ISIS is going on?  Iraq, Syria, at least one attack linked to ISIS in Turkey (perhaps more, I haven't checked).  ISIS is not a nation for us to invade, despite their rhetoric about creating a 'caliphate'.  They have taken control of areas in two countries, Iraq and Syria, that I know of.  They have not taken over either country nor even consolidated their control; supposedly they have been leaving some areas open to be retaken and are still running more of a mobile conflict than creating their own nation.
> 
> Any oil fields controlled by ISIS almost certainly reside in either Iraq or Syria.  So bombing oil fields under the control of ISIS means bombing in those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're jumping through hoops to INFER things that weren't said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed Trump never said anything about bombing.  Skylar then provided a quote from Trump in which he specifically advocates bombing.  Then you make a comment about oil fields not translating to Iraq, Syria and Iran.  The oil fields controlled by ISIS are located in Iraq and Syria (I'll give you Iran, I'm unaware of ISIS controlling territory or oil fields in that nation).
> 
> What hoops am I jumping through to infer what?
Click to expand...


Well... an "oil field" isn't a country. It's IN a country. As all oil fields are.


----------



## Boss

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like his planned parenthood comments, I'm in the lovely position of merely offer the actual quotes. And you instantly lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well no... you're quoting him but he doesn't say anything about bombing Iraq, Syria or Iran or taking over their countries. It's not there... he never said that. So it is YOU who is losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, yes. I am. You said Trump never expressed support for funding Planned Parenthood. Here's Trump contradicting you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "[T]the biggest problem I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation,” he said. “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government.”
> 
> But he continued by saying he wouldn't necessarily defund the organization.
> 
> “If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boom. You lose. And on Trump contradicting you about bombing anyone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone."
> 
> Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how else I can tell? You're desperately scrubbing any of these quotes from your replies.
> 
> Laughing...as if by omitting them from your reply, none of us can actually read them.
> 
> Sigh.....you can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...


You're delusional.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like his planned parenthood comments, I'm in the lovely position of merely offer the actual quotes. And you instantly lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well no... you're quoting him but he doesn't say anything about bombing Iraq, Syria or Iran or taking over their countries. It's not there... he never said that. So it is YOU who is losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, yes. I am. You said Trump never expressed support for funding Planned Parenthood. Here's Trump contradicting you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "[T]the biggest problem I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation,” he said. “It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government.”
> 
> But he continued by saying he wouldn't necessarily defund the organization.
> 
> “If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”
> 
> Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boom. You lose. And on Trump contradicting you about bombing anyone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well no... Trump said he would take the oil wells which ISIS controls, which is funding their violence. Nothing about bombing anyone."
> 
> Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump:* I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields.* I wouldn't send in many troops, as you won't need them by the time I got finished.* I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields.*
> 
> Donald Trump
> July 10th 2015
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how else I can tell? You're desperately scrubbing any of these quotes from your replies.
> 
> Laughing...as if by omitting them from your reply, none of us can actually read them.
> 
> Sigh.....you can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're delusional.
Click to expand...

No. He's factually very correct.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't going to be a 30-year war.
Click to expand...

Fuck you. 

_"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." - Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002_​
_fool me once, shame on you... fool me .... can't git fooled again!_


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to us to occupy a hostile country for a CENTURY is how much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's _*NOTHING*_ if you pay for it with the oil you pump out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering your lack of knowledge about the military shown earlier in discussion about our submarines, perhaps making declarations like this is something you should reconsider.  Do you have any estimates of the actual cost of a century of war and the profits from the oil fields controlled by ISIS?
> 
> This, of course, does not take into account the cost in lives, the cost in international relations, even the cost in support at home.
> 
> EDIT : To be clear, this is about the hypothetical you and Skylar are involved in.  I'm not taking a stand against any bombing of oil fields controlled by ISIS, that may well be a good tactic.  Taking over those oil fields I am less on board with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well first of all, it doesn't matter about cost. We have to defeat enemies at war with us when they are killing American citizens... plain and simple... doesn't matter how much that costs.
> 
> Second... it's not going to "cost" a damn thing... the OIL will pay for it. In fact, we'll come out ahead. As far as who likes us or who likes what we are doing... don't really give two shits and I don't think Trump does either.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter about cost?  Of course it matters.  It always matters.  If nothing else, cost must be taken into account to determine how any enemy can be defeated and what will be the repercussions on your own nation.  And that's just monetary cost.

Perhaps taking over the oil fields controlled by ISIS will pay for any conflict with them.  Taking over is not the same as bombing, but let's say we take control of the oil fields under ISIS control (I've seen reports that ISIS controls 11 in Iraq and Syria and makes something like $3 million a day selling the oil cheaply, although I don't know how accurate those numbers are).  Our actions will not occur in a vacuum.  Will the price of oil fluctuate based on our invasion?  Will our economy be hurt by potential actions by other nations, such as Russia and China, who are opposed to are takeover of these oil fields?  Will we have a constant conflict going on so long as we control the fields, with various terrorists and insurgents doing what they can to hurt us, perhaps even disrupting or destroying our own ability to get the oil?  What economic impacts might there be from our allies, both positive and negative?

I don't know if you are serious or just trolling with this, but just saying 'the oil will pay for it' seems to be ignoring the complexity of the situation.  It is as much 'putting your head in the sand' as you claim others are doing.  Maybe you don't care about the complexities involved, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Preventing ISIS from using the oil fields they control seems to be a far more reasonable idea than taking those oil fields for ourselves.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, huh?
> 
> You can't possibly be this ignorant of your own candidate's positions. You not only don't have any concept of the consequences of what you're proposing, *you have no idea what he's proposing.*
> 
> *Do you?*
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman, I offer you a Trump voter. This is his base. And they don't even know what the fuck they're backing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW... Well, let's see.... Does "oil fields"  somehow 'translate' in your stupid liberal brain as "Iraq, Syria and Iran"?  I've already stated that he planned to bomb oil fields and take them from ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly do you think ISIS controls oil fields?  Where do you think the supposed 'caliphate' of ISIS is located?  Are you aware of where the fighting involving ISIS is going on?  Iraq, Syria, at least one attack linked to ISIS in Turkey (perhaps more, I haven't checked).  ISIS is not a nation for us to invade, despite their rhetoric about creating a 'caliphate'.  They have taken control of areas in two countries, Iraq and Syria, that I know of.  They have not taken over either country nor even consolidated their control; supposedly they have been leaving some areas open to be retaken and are still running more of a mobile conflict than creating their own nation.
> 
> Any oil fields controlled by ISIS almost certainly reside in either Iraq or Syria.  So bombing oil fields under the control of ISIS means bombing in those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're jumping through hoops to INFER things that weren't said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed Trump never said anything about bombing.  Skylar then provided a quote from Trump in which he specifically advocates bombing.  Then you make a comment about oil fields not translating to Iraq, Syria and Iran.  The oil fields controlled by ISIS are located in Iraq and Syria (I'll give you Iran, I'm unaware of ISIS controlling territory or oil fields in that nation).
> 
> What hoops am I jumping through to infer what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... an "oil field" isn't a country. It's IN a country. As all oil fields are.
Click to expand...


And bombing an oil field in Iraq is not bombing in Iraq?  What are you trying to say?


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> it's not going to "cost" a damn thing... the OIL will pay for it. In fact, we'll come out ahead.


Again .... fuck you.

_"The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment -- as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." - Donald Rumsfeld, 10.3.2003 _​
_fool me once, shame on you ... fool me .... can't git fooled again!_


----------



## ABikerSailor

Didn't Jr., Cheney and RumsFAILED all tell us that the Iraq war wasn't going to last that long, and it wouldn't cost us much because of all the oil we'd get?

How's that working out for us?


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> No. He's factually very correct.



No.. . FACTUALLY he is not correct. The FACT is, Trump said "oil fields" and not "Iran, Syria, Iraq" which is what was claimed he said. I actually take more exception to the contradiction of bombing the oil fields yet we're also going to secure them and exploit the oil resource... that's going to be hard to do if they are bombed to hell first.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Perhaps taking over the oil fields controlled by ISIS will pay for any conflict with them. Taking over is not the same as bombing, but let's say we take control of the oil fields under ISIS control (I've seen reports that ISIS controls 11 in Iraq and Syria and makes something like $3 million a day selling the oil cheaply, although I don't know how accurate those numbers are). Our actions will not occur in a vacuum. Will the price of oil fluctuate based on our invasion? Will our economy be hurt by potential actions by other nations, such as Russia and China, who are opposed to are takeover of these oil fields? Will we have a constant conflict going on so long as we control the fields, with various terrorists and insurgents doing what they can to hurt us, perhaps even disrupting or destroying our own ability to get the oil? What economic impacts might there be from our allies, both positive and negative?



You raise some valid questions but none of them can be answered for certain until the action happens. The question is, are we dealing with something where we have options which end with a resolution to the problem of radical Islam's war with us? Honestly, I don't know how to defeat an enemy at war with us and not hurt anyone's feelings. I also don't know of any answer that resolves all potential outcomes or problems that may arise as result of the action. So we can accept there may be some undesirable consequences but I don't know that we have any other option.. ignoring radical Islam, refusing to even utter the words "radical Islamic terror" doesn't seem to be diminishing the enemy.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Boss said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. He's factually very correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. . FACTUALLY he is not correct. The FACT is, Trump said "oil fields" and not "Iran, Syria, Iraq" which is what was claimed he said. I actually take more exception to the contradiction of bombing the oil fields yet we're also going to secure them and exploit the oil resource... that's going to be hard to do if they are bombed to hell first.
Click to expand...

You think that oil fields are not located within sovereign nations, that they are cherries hanging from a tree, waiting to be plucked? It's neocons like you who screwed the pooch the first 3 times. No thank you, perpetual war is not the solution.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Boss

Statistikhengst said:


> You think that oil fields are not located within sovereign nations, that they are cherries hanging from a tree, waiting to be plucked? It's neocons like you who screwed the pooch the first 3 times. No thank you, perpetual war is not the solution.



Oh, I know they are in countries. We don't need to take over the country. Don't want to take over the country to be honest... just control the oil fields.  And no... there won't be a 'perpetual war' like there is today as we speak... they will be paralyzed and unable to wage war with no oil. There is not much of a global market for sand. 

And I don't really care who has screwed who's pooch when... that's for history to decide. I want to put an end to radical Islamic terrorism and defeat the enemy who has been at war with us for 20 years and you want to continue the Hillary Clinton policy of ignoring problems... which gets Americans killed.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps taking over the oil fields controlled by ISIS will pay for any conflict with them. Taking over is not the same as bombing, but let's say we take control of the oil fields under ISIS control (I've seen reports that ISIS controls 11 in Iraq and Syria and makes something like $3 million a day selling the oil cheaply, although I don't know how accurate those numbers are). Our actions will not occur in a vacuum. Will the price of oil fluctuate based on our invasion? Will our economy be hurt by potential actions by other nations, such as Russia and China, who are opposed to are takeover of these oil fields? Will we have a constant conflict going on so long as we control the fields, with various terrorists and insurgents doing what they can to hurt us, perhaps even disrupting or destroying our own ability to get the oil? What economic impacts might there be from our allies, both positive and negative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You raise some valid questions but none of them can be answered for certain until the action happens. The question is, are we dealing with something where we have options which end with a resolution to the problem of radical Islam's war with us? Honestly, I don't know how to defeat an enemy at war with us and not hurt anyone's feelings. I also don't know of any answer that resolves all potential outcomes or problems that may arise as result of the action. So we can accept there may be some undesirable consequences but I don't know that we have any other option.. ignoring radical Islam, refusing to even utter the words "radical Islamic terror" doesn't seem to be diminishing the enemy.
Click to expand...


Taking over a few oil fields will certainly not be a resolution to the problems of radical Islam.  At absolute best it might be a resolution to the problem of ISIS, and even then, I tend to doubt it.  Oh, it might well be a good short term solution, but defeating an ideology rather than a nation is a very difficult proposition.  

I don't know that the short term gains of such an action would outweigh the long term losses.  As I've said, I claim no expertise and admit I might be wildly mistaken.  However, I do not see Trump as any sort of military or diplomatic expert, either, so find it hard to put trust in his plan at this point.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps taking over the oil fields controlled by ISIS will pay for any conflict with them. Taking over is not the same as bombing, but let's say we take control of the oil fields under ISIS control (I've seen reports that ISIS controls 11 in Iraq and Syria and makes something like $3 million a day selling the oil cheaply, although I don't know how accurate those numbers are). Our actions will not occur in a vacuum. Will the price of oil fluctuate based on our invasion? Will our economy be hurt by potential actions by other nations, such as Russia and China, who are opposed to are takeover of these oil fields? Will we have a constant conflict going on so long as we control the fields, with various terrorists and insurgents doing what they can to hurt us, perhaps even disrupting or destroying our own ability to get the oil? What economic impacts might there be from our allies, both positive and negative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You raise some valid questions but none of them can be answered for certain until the action happens. The question is, are we dealing with something where we have options which end with a resolution to the problem of radical Islam's war with us? Honestly, I don't know how to defeat an enemy at war with us and not hurt anyone's feelings. I also don't know of any answer that resolves all potential outcomes or problems that may arise as result of the action. So we can accept there may be some undesirable consequences but I don't know that we have any other option.. ignoring radical Islam, refusing to even utter the words "radical Islamic terror" doesn't seem to be diminishing the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking over a few oil fields will certainly not be a resolution to the problems of radical Islam.  At absolute best it might be a resolution to the problem of ISIS, and even then, I tend to doubt it.  Oh, it might well be a good short term solution, but defeating an ideology rather than a nation is a very difficult proposition.
> 
> I don't know that the short term gains of such an action would outweigh the long term losses.  As I've said, I claim no expertise and admit I might be wildly mistaken.  However, I do not see Trump as any sort of military or diplomatic expert, either, so find it hard to put trust in his plan at this point.
Click to expand...


Well he was specifically talking about ISIS and not radical Islamic terrorism, that was my interjection. ISIS is radical Islamic terrorism. Yes, defeating an ideology is difficult... Yes, there will be challenges... Yes, no solution will be perfect and without any negatives whatsoever. Now that we agree on that, is it better to ACT or just ignore them and let them keep waging war against us? Seems like a really dumb idea to continue ignoring them... they aren't subsiding. 

Now, I am no military expert either... BUT... I think we should pay attention to them and take them seriously. When we see videos of them sawing off people's heads or drowning a cage full of helpless victims... that's real... it's not a movie. Those are real humans losing their lives. As much as I don't like war and don't like invading other countries, I don't like watching terrorism happen worse. So instead of ignoring them and hoping they stop some day... I think they deserve the undivided attention of our US military in all her glory. And I am not too concerned with who that pisses off. 

I remember back when Bush invaded, all the lefties claimed it was "for the oil" ..or at least, that was on the list of reasons... but Bush made it clear, we would not take the oil and we didn't... despite the fact that "war for oil" kept on being a mantra of the left... still is mentioned today. Trump is simply saying, screw that deal-- take the damn oil-- stop worrying about what the liberal left says-- stop trying to fight a politically correct war. Take the oil... not because we are greedy and want the oil, but because strategically it eliminates our enemy's ability to fund terrorism. Leave these sons of bitches with nothing but sand to trade... then let's see how long they last as we pound hell out them with the best military on the planet. I'm betting less than a month. 

Will that END radical Islamic terror? Probably not, but it would be a very good start. Critics will say.. _oh, but you'll just create MORE terrorists..._ But more terrorists are already being created and they are funding recruitment for their Jihad with the oil. When the oil goes, so does the money... When the money goes, people begin to starve... when people are starving, they are much less likely to waste money on bullets and bombs... they have to conserve calories more so they can't be sawing off heads or drowning cage fulls of women and children. So I would like to try and turn every terrorist into a beggar for humanitarian relief. And I think we can!


----------



## ABikerSailor

How are you going to take the oil fields without pissing off the whole Middle East?

You thought Abu Grahib was bad for our reputation, if we invade and take over oil fields in Muslim countries, that will only galvanize more people against us.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> How are you going to take the oil fields without pissing off the whole Middle East?
> 
> You thought Abu Grahib was bad for our reputation, if we invade and take over oil fields in Muslim countries, that will only galvanize more people against us.



Well let's think about this... last I checked, the whole middle east, with exception to Israel, is already quite pissed off. Most recently, in the videos they have released, it seems they have taken to very creative ways in which to execute their innocent victims. 

For at least the past 10 years of our 20 year war with them, we've been engaged in this 'head in the sand' idea that we're pissing them off too much to fight them... and retreating... apologizing... trying to appease them somehow... but the problem is, we can't be killed fast enough. So maybe if we allow them to get nukes they can kill off 50 million of us or maybe 100 million.. that will help appease them and make them feel better? I mean... that is what's important, right? Them being pleased? 

Here is the "reputation" that I want as a country... 
You fuck with us, you sign your death warrant. Period. End of statement.


----------



## Old Rocks

OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq? 

Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.


----------



## Zander

Old Rocks said:


> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.


I agree. But who says we have to use the US military? Send in paid mercenaries.


----------



## Boss

Old Rocks said:


> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.



It's not for oil.  We have plenty of oil here, we don't need the oil. It's for strategic reasons as has been explained... are you not following? And it doesn't matter what we did in the past, the past doesn't make any difference now. We're still there because we have American interests and allies there and we're not going to be able to leave. Does not matter anyway, it's not our presence they are opposed to, it's our existence. 

I thank you for your service to the country but we don't make foreign policy based on the sole opinion of those who served... I'm sure that when you die and go to Liberal Utopian heaven, that's how things will be there, if they have wars at all.... but in our universe of reality, that isn't the case.


----------



## Vigilante

Getting back to the Op..... of interest, perhaps not to NeoCommies, or RINO'S but to regular people.....

*Halperin: Trump Reached ‘Turning Point,’ ‘Most’ Estab Cands Think He Can Win Nomination!*

breitbart.com ^ | Ian Hanchett
Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has “reached a turning point” where the “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa, “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Halperin was asked his writing that “Most importantly, we’ve reached a turning point with Trump, the major establishment campaigns of both parties now think Trump could win Iowa, and most of them think he could win the nomination, and a significant number think he could win the White...


----------



## JimH52

Yup, the GOP is now well on he way to being Trumped!  LOVE IT!


----------



## JimH52

Zander said:


> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!



It will get better.  The media is beginning to figure out what buttons they need to push to get Trump to lose it.  Just a matter of time before he threatens someone's life on national television.  It will endear him in the eyes of all voters.  But the GOP will be stuck with him by that time.


----------



## Boss

JimH52 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will get better.  The media is beginning to figure out what buttons they need to push to get Trump to lose it.  Just a matter of time before he threatens someone's life on national television.  It will endear him in the eyes of all voters.  But the GOP will be stuck with him by that time.
Click to expand...


He has already threatened someone's life on national television. He is going to kill ISIS members and take their oil. His supporters loved it... his poll numbers keep going higher. Now... if the media could get Trump to maybe strangle Hillary at the debate or something.... mayyyybe... 

Nahh... they'd eat that up! 

The media has figured out they best not "attack" Trump. It took them a few times but it appears they've learned their lesson. Sunday's Meet The Press, the reporter was respectful but asked some pretty tough questions. Trump was cordial, he gave good detailed answers, there was a lot of good back and forth debate and he sounded perfectly calm, rational and on point. 

Jim... you may want to get your anxiety medication prescription filled early and often.


----------



## Geaux4it

JimH52 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will get better.  The media is beginning to figure out what buttons they need to push to get Trump to lose it.  Just a matter of time before he threatens someone's life on national television.  It will endear him in the eyes of all voters.  But the GOP will be stuck with him by that time.
Click to expand...


If that's stuck.... Where are we now under Obama?

buried?

-Geaux


----------



## Boss

Old Rocks said:


> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.



I just heard a speech today from Trump addressing this. He wants to capture the oil wells and use the oil revenue to pay families of vets who died or were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for oil.  We have plenty of oil here, we don't need the oil. It's for strategic reasons as has been explained... are you not following? And it doesn't matter what we did in the past, the past doesn't make any difference now. We're still there because we have American interests and allies there and we're not going to be able to leave. Does not matter anyway, it's not our presence they are opposed to, it's our existence.
> 
> I thank you for your service to the country but we don't make foreign policy based on the sole opinion of those who served... I'm sure that when you die and go to Liberal Utopian heaven, that's how things will be there, if they have wars at all.... but in our universe of reality, that isn't the case.
Click to expand...


We have no other strategic interest in the Middle East other than oil. 

Invading other countries just for their oil as you say would make us no different than the dictators and totalitarians and would cost tens of thousands of American lives, both over there and here. It's an incredibly dumb idea.


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just heard a speech today from Trump addressing this. He wants to capture the oil wells and use the oil revenue to pay families of vets who died or were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


That's right. Create even more families of vets who died or were injured to pay for other vets who died or were injured. 

rofl

And his supporters think we are supposed to take Trump seriously.


----------



## Slyhunter

JimH52 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will get better.  The media is beginning to figure out what buttons they need to push to get Trump to lose it.  Just a matter of time before he threatens someone's life on national television.  It will endear him in the eyes of all voters.  But the GOP will be stuck with him by that time.
Click to expand...

You mean like Geraldo threatening to kick Trumps spokesman's ass?


----------



## JimH52

Boss said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's blunt, refreshing, and DOMINATING!!!!!
> 
> So far this is the best election cycle in my lifetime. I have a feeling it will get better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will get better.  The media is beginning to figure out what buttons they need to push to get Trump to lose it.  Just a matter of time before he threatens someone's life on national television.  It will endear him in the eyes of all voters.  But the GOP will be stuck with him by that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has already threatened someone's life on national television. He is going to kill ISIS members and take their oil. His supporters loved it... his poll numbers keep going higher. Now... if the media could get Trump to maybe strangle Hillary at the debate or something.... mayyyybe...
> 
> Nahh... they'd eat that up!
> 
> The media has figured out they best not "attack" Trump. It took them a few times but it appears they've learned their lesson. Sunday's Meet The Press, the reporter was respectful but asked some pretty tough questions. Trump was cordial, he gave good detailed answers, there was a lot of good back and forth debate and he sounded perfectly calm, rational and on point.
> 
> Jim... you may want to get your anxiety medication prescription filled early and often.
Click to expand...


No meds needed, but the establishment GOP are rocking back and forth on their heels.  Yes, Trump can keep it together for a short period again a non-foe.  The other GOP hopefuls should have figure out by now that push Donnie far enough and his hair begins to smoke....a sickly orange.  The CNN debate is going to be priceless AGAIN!


----------



## JimH52

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for oil.  We have plenty of oil here, we don't need the oil. It's for strategic reasons as has been explained... are you not following? And it doesn't matter what we did in the past, the past doesn't make any difference now. We're still there because we have American interests and allies there and we're not going to be able to leave. Does not matter anyway, it's not our presence they are opposed to, it's our existence.
> 
> I thank you for your service to the country but we don't make foreign policy based on the sole opinion of those who served... I'm sure that when you die and go to Liberal Utopian heaven, that's how things will be there, if they have wars at all.... but in our universe of reality, that isn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no other strategic interest in the Middle East other than oil.
> 
> Invading other countries just for their oil as you say would make us no different than the dictators and totalitarians and would cost tens of thousands of American lives, both over there and here. It's an incredibly dumb idea.
Click to expand...


Dude!  That was the Bush Doctrine!


----------



## Zander

The fear from Democrats is palpable. Their "cuckquean queen" is going down in flames and all they can talk about is TRUMP.


----------



## peach174

JimH52 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for oil.  We have plenty of oil here, we don't need the oil. It's for strategic reasons as has been explained... are you not following? And it doesn't matter what we did in the past, the past doesn't make any difference now. We're still there because we have American interests and allies there and we're not going to be able to leave. Does not matter anyway, it's not our presence they are opposed to, it's our existence.
> 
> I thank you for your service to the country but we don't make foreign policy based on the sole opinion of those who served... I'm sure that when you die and go to Liberal Utopian heaven, that's how things will be there, if they have wars at all.... but in our universe of reality, that isn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no other strategic interest in the Middle East other than oil.
> 
> Invading other countries just for their oil as you say would make us no different than the dictators and totalitarians and would cost tens of thousands of American lives, both over there and here. It's an incredibly dumb idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude!  That was the Bush Doctrine!
Click to expand...



If that was true the USA should be getting most of the oil from Iraq but we aren't, China is getting that oil.


----------



## JimH52

peach174 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for oil.  We have plenty of oil here, we don't need the oil. It's for strategic reasons as has been explained... are you not following? And it doesn't matter what we did in the past, the past doesn't make any difference now. We're still there because we have American interests and allies there and we're not going to be able to leave. Does not matter anyway, it's not our presence they are opposed to, it's our existence.
> 
> I thank you for your service to the country but we don't make foreign policy based on the sole opinion of those who served... I'm sure that when you die and go to Liberal Utopian heaven, that's how things will be there, if they have wars at all.... but in our universe of reality, that isn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no other strategic interest in the Middle East other than oil.
> 
> Invading other countries just for their oil as you say would make us no different than the dictators and totalitarians and would cost tens of thousands of American lives, both over there and here. It's an incredibly dumb idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude!  That was the Bush Doctrine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true the USA should be getting most of the oil from Iraq but we aren't, China is getting that oil.
Click to expand...


Yup, W's plan turned out well, huh?


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> We have no other strategic interest in the Middle East other than oil.
> 
> Invading other countries just for their oil as you say would make us no different than the dictators and totalitarians and would cost tens of thousands of American lives, both over there and here. It's an incredibly dumb idea.



No other strategic interest? Have you not heard about ISIS or radical Islam? 

Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS. Instead of the reserves being used to fund terrorism, they will be used to pay families of wounded warriors and vets who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

YOU'RE an incredibly dumb idea. Your daddy should have pulled out and jizzed on your mom's ass instead of making you.


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How about you send your kids out to die for oil. When I volunteered for the service over 50 years ago, I volunteered to defend my nation. I think the volunteers today feel the same way. Should we really invade nations for oil? Or for non-existant WMD? And, after invading Afghanistan for 9-11, we let Bin Laden go for seven years. Why the hell did we invade if we were not going to make every effort to get Bin Laden? And why are we still there and in Iraq?
> 
> Time to rethink why we are militarily involved in some areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just heard a speech today from Trump addressing this. He wants to capture the oil wells and use the oil revenue to pay families of vets who died or were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right. Create even more families of vets who died or were injured to pay for other vets who died or were injured.
> 
> rofl
> 
> And his supporters think we are supposed to take Trump seriously.
Click to expand...


Why do you hate the Veterans?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Boss said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no other strategic interest in the Middle East other than oil.
> 
> Invading other countries just for their oil as you say would make us no different than the dictators and totalitarians and would cost tens of thousands of American lives, both over there and here. It's an incredibly dumb idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No other strategic interest? Have you not heard about ISIS or radical Islam?
> 
> Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS. Instead of the reserves being used to fund terrorism, they will be used to pay families of wounded warriors and vets who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> YOU'RE an incredibly dumb idea. Your daddy should have pulled out and jizzed on your mom's ass instead of making you.
Click to expand...


  The best part of him ran down her leg.


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS. Instead of the reserves being used to fund terrorism, they will be used to pay families of wounded warriors and vets who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> YOU'RE an incredibly dumb idea. Your daddy should have pulled out and jizzed on your mom's ass instead of making you.



How does he propose to "confiscate the resources of ISIS" and use the reserves to fund compensation for vets without invading a country?  Is Syria and Iraq just going to give us the oil fields?  Does ISIS have oil reserves in Texas?  Is he planning to send over Han Solo to kick their ass?

Or are you just gullible and will believe any nonsense Trump spews?  Given that you hilariously think that he would win the black vote, that appears to be the case.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The only way that we could have any kind of effect on those oil fields is to bomb them out of existence, but if we did that, then the other ME countries would be up in arms over us attacking another ME country.

There is no way in hell that we could take the oil fields and the oil without a full scale occupation that would have to last as long as we kept using that oil.

Hell of a cost militarily, and if we occupied a country and took their resources, you can bet there is gonna be a major resistance against us.

Donald the Chump's plan is a total fail and would never work.  He should check with some real Generals and military types rather than getting his foreign policy points from the Sunday talk shows.  Why?  Simple.............Middle East policy, along with all the rivalries between the tribes and various factions is too complex to be understood in a 5 or 10 min segment on a talk show.

Shit............even the hour and two hour long documentaries that air on PBS, History, and Military channels barely even scratch the surface.


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS. Instead of the reserves being used to fund terrorism, they will be used to pay families of wounded warriors and vets who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> YOU'RE an incredibly dumb idea. Your daddy should have pulled out and jizzed on your mom's ass instead of making you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does he propose to "confiscate the resources of ISIS" and use the reserves to fund compensation for vets without invading a country?  Is Syria and Iraq just going to give us the oil fields?  Does ISIS have oil reserves in Texas?  Is he planning to send over Han Solo to kick their ass?
> 
> Or are you just gullible and will believe any nonsense Trump spews?  Given that you hilariously think that he would win the black vote, that appears to be the case.
Click to expand...


I guess you never heard of our state-of-the-art stealth bombers?  

I never said he wouldn't have to invade a country to take the oil. I think even a moron understands you can't take the oil unless you are in the country to do so. So yes... we might be invading some countries. We're already IN Iraq... how do we invade where we already are? 

The point I was making was that our action is not because we're greedy and want to steal their resources by being military bullies. It's a strategic action to cripple radical Islamic terrorists. I honestly couldn't care less that you want to be an ISIS sympathizer.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> The only way that we could have any kind of effect on those oil fields is to bomb them out of existence, but if we did that, then the other ME countries would be up in arms over us attacking another ME country.
> 
> There is no way in hell that we could take the oil fields and the oil without a full scale occupation that would have to last as long as we kept using that oil.
> 
> Hell of a cost militarily, and if we occupied a country and took their resources, you can bet there is gonna be a major resistance against us.
> 
> Donald the Chump's plan is a total fail and would never work.  He should check with some real Generals and military types rather than getting his foreign policy points from the Sunday talk shows.  Why?  Simple.............Middle East policy, along with all the rivalries between the tribes and various factions is too complex to be understood in a 5 or 10 min segment on a talk show.
> 
> Shit............even the hour and two hour long documentaries that air on PBS, History, and Military channels barely even scratch the surface.



Keep in mind that Trump is not laying everything he will do on the table for the whole world to see. He made the comments about taking the oil from ISIS but he made it reluctantly... he would have rather maintained that as a secret. 

We don't need a "full-scale occupation" to control some oil fields. We're not there to rebuild the nation and install our puppets... we have no interest in that. We don't even really need the oil... we have plenty of other sources. We're taking it because it cripples ISIS. And the money we get from it is going to take care of our vets who we owe so much. 

And, I am not afraid of people being pissed off at us or trying to resist. I realize that you are a coward who had rather deploy the Dorthy Strategy..._ (close your eyes, click you heels and repeat... there's no such thing as radical Islam... there's no such thing as radical Islam..)_ but the Dorothy Strategy isn't working. So now it's time to let someone with balls try something that DOES work.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that we could have any kind of effect on those oil fields is to bomb them out of existence, but if we did that, then the other ME countries would be up in arms over us attacking another ME country.
> 
> There is no way in hell that we could take the oil fields and the oil without a full scale occupation that would have to last as long as we kept using that oil.
> 
> Hell of a cost militarily, and if we occupied a country and took their resources, you can bet there is gonna be a major resistance against us.
> 
> Donald the Chump's plan is a total fail and would never work.  He should check with some real Generals and military types rather than getting his foreign policy points from the Sunday talk shows.  Why?  Simple.............Middle East policy, along with all the rivalries between the tribes and various factions is too complex to be understood in a 5 or 10 min segment on a talk show.
> 
> Shit............even the hour and two hour long documentaries that air on PBS, History, and Military channels barely even scratch the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that Trump is not laying everything he will do on the table for the whole world to see. He made the comments about taking the oil from ISIS but he made it reluctantly... he would have rather maintained that as a secret.
> 
> We don't need a "full-scale occupation" to control some oil fields. We're not there to rebuild the nation and install our puppets... we have no interest in that. We don't even really need the oil... we have plenty of other sources. We're taking it because it cripples ISIS. And the money we get from it is going to take care of our vets who we owe so much.
> 
> And, I am not afraid of people being pissed off at us or trying to resist. I realize that you are a coward who had rather deploy the Dorthy Strategy..._ (close your eyes, click you heels and repeat... there's no such thing as radical Islam... there's no such thing as radical Islam..)_ but the Dorothy Strategy isn't working. So now it's time to let someone with balls try something that DOES work.
Click to expand...

Someone should suggest to him the idea of drilling right through the earth and sucking out the oil from below...and getting ISIS to pay for it.


----------



## Boss

idb said:


> Someone should suggest to him the idea of drilling right through the earth and sucking out the oil from below...and getting ISIS to pay for it.



I know you're trying to be funny but it's interesting to note... You know how liberal environmentalist wackos have blocked our efforts to drill in the ANWR? Well, guess who is currently deploying "horizontal drilling" technology to tap the reserves?  Here's a hint, Sara Palin can probably see them from her back door on a clear day. Yep... The Ruskies are dippin' their straw into our liquid gold from the side... we're really smart people, aren't we?


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS.





Boss said:


> I never said he wouldn't have to invade a country to take the oil. I think even a moron understands you can't take the oil unless you are in the country to do so.



rofl

What a moran.

In the same quote pyramid nonetheless.



You do understand that the "ISIS reserves" are the reserves of Iraq and Syria?

Of course you don't.

Now tell us again how Trump is going to win the black vote.  lol


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said he wouldn't have to invade a country to take the oil. I think even a moron understands you can't take the oil unless you are in the country to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rofl
> 
> What a moran.
> 
> In the same quote pyramid nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the "ISIS reserves" are the reserves of Iraq and Syria?
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Now tell us again how Trump is going to win the black vote.  lol
Click to expand...


Right... and there are two completely different contexts which you can't follow because you're too fucking retarded in the mind. Someone must have fed you lead as a baby or something.... maybe your mom was a crack head while she breast fed you? But your brain can't grasp context or nuance.  

The concept of "invading in order to take their oil" is a completely different concept than "invading to strategically capture the oil." We're not proposing this to be bullies and steal oil that doesn't belong to us. That's not the context and I won't allow you to define it in that context. We don't have to "invade" Iraq... we're already IN the country. So there is no "invasion" needed. We might need to invade Syria to capture their oil fields... but again, it's not so we can be bullies and steal their stuff. And we have no interest in invading to occupy or overthrow the government... they can do whatever the hell they want. We're just going to seize the oil supply from ISIS.


----------



## Vigilante

*Latest CNN Poll: Trump Still Leads, Christie Out of Top Ten!!!*

A CNN poll, (Clinton News Network!) certainly NO BIAS there....ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!

National Review ^ | 08/18/2015 | Jim Geraghty
From the Tuesday Morning Jolt: CNN Poll: Trump Still Leads, Christie Out of Top Ten A new poll from CNN this morning: The survey finds Trump with the support of 24% of Republican registered voters. His nearest competitor, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, stands 11 points behind at 13%. Just behind Bush, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has 9%, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker 8%,Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul 6%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former tech CEO Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich all land at 5%, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee rounding out the top...


----------



## Toro

Boss said:


> The concept of "invading in order to take their oil" is a completely different concept than "invading to strategically capture the oil."



rofl

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that, Trumptard!  



Trump:  I will raise Jesus from the dead!

Boss:  Oh, he will.  And here's why, liberal moron! ...


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... No one has proposed we invade a country and take their oil. Trump is talking about a strategic move to confiscate the resources of ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said he wouldn't have to invade a country to take the oil. I think even a moron understands you can't take the oil unless you are in the country to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rofl
> 
> What a moran.
> 
> In the same quote pyramid nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the "ISIS reserves" are the reserves of Iraq and Syria?
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Now tell us again how Trump is going to win the black vote.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... and there are two completely different contexts which you can't follow because you're too fucking retarded in the mind. Someone must have fed you lead as a baby or something.... maybe your mom was a crack head while she breast fed you? But your brain can't grasp context or nuance.
> 
> The concept of "invading in order to take their oil" is a completely different concept than "invading to strategically capture the oil." We're not proposing this to be bullies and steal oil that doesn't belong to us. That's not the context and I won't allow you to define it in that context. We don't have to "invade" Iraq... we're already IN the country. So there is no "invasion" needed. We might need to invade Syria to capture their oil fields... but again, it's not so we can be bullies and steal their stuff. And we have no interest in invading to occupy or overthrow the government... they can do whatever the hell they want. We're just going to seize the oil supply from ISIS.
Click to expand...




> The concept of "invading in order to take their oil" is a completely different concept than "invading to strategically capture the oil


That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.


----------



## Boss

idb said:


> That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.



No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.
Click to expand...

Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?


----------



## Boss

idb said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?
Click to expand...


He did, and I think he makes a valid point. If we are going to use our military and our soldiers are going to make the sacrifice, we should be compensated. In 2002, we should have taken the oil... why didn't we? Well, it was because liberals whined "it wouldn't be fairrrrrr!" The Bush administration decided it might look bad... Trump is contesting that argument, and I believe he is right. 

So now, in 2017... He's not talking about taking the oil to compensate for our trouble in 2002. He is suggesting a strategy to defeat ISIS and again, I think it's a good strategy. Take the oil-- he has already justified why it's okay for us to do so and we shouldn't feel bad about it. The revenues are going to be used for such better things... instead of funding terrorism, it will be taking care of families who lost loved ones or have family members permanently scarred by war.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, and I think he makes a valid point. If we are going to use our military and our soldiers are going to make the sacrifice, we should be compensated. In 2002, we should have taken the oil... why didn't we? Well, it was because liberals whined "it wouldn't be fairrrrrr!" The Bush administration decided it might look bad... Trump is contesting that argument, and I believe he is right.
> 
> So now, in 2017... He's not talking about taking the oil to compensate for our trouble in 2002. He is suggesting a strategy to defeat ISIS and again, I think it's a good strategy. Take the oil-- he has already justified why it's okay for us to do so and we shouldn't feel bad about it. The revenues are going to be used for such better things... instead of funding terrorism, it will be taking care of families who lost loved ones or have family members permanently scarred by war.
Click to expand...

What about the Iraqi families scarred by war?
Do they deserve any compensation?


----------



## Esmeralda

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*


This is not something to celebrate. This is sad. It is sad you folks think he is someone who should be in the White House, leader of the free world. Sad, very sad.


----------



## Esmeralda

tinydancer said:


> You libs really don't get it. I really should call you progressives because a classical liberal would understand what we are all jaked about.
> 
> Win or lose is not the point. The Donald is shaking the RNC up. The Donald isn't taking any shit from the establishment. Nor the media.
> 
> Long overdue that someone shook the political pillars of heaven and hell and Trump is pulling it off.
> 
> Damn you progressives are lamo. Abbie and Jerry would be ashamed of you.
> 
> Look who you have running your party. Pfffffffffffffft. Old white people who are just as locked in as the RINO'S.
> 
> You should be looking for a mover and a shaker on your side of the aisle too.


He is a loud mouthed buffoon with an empty mind.  It's so sad you all think he is the next coming of Christ.  You all are seriously  not being smart at all.

Case in point: you are attacking the Democrats for having "old white people who are just locked in as Rinos."  Since when is Obama white? But more importantly, something you are overlooking: TRUMP IS OLDER, YES OLDER, THAN HILLARY.  Jeeze.


----------



## Boss

idb said:


> What about the Iraqi families scarred by war?
> Do they deserve any compensation?



Maybe so... it depends on how much they want to help us defeat radical Islamic terror. We can't be doling out money to ISIS sympathizers... that would kind of defeat the purpose. Most of the people who died in the war, who weren't US or coalition soldiers, were terrorists. But now... if there are little orphan kids somewhere, who are hungry and need medicine, I am sure Trump would kick in a few $$ to help them. We're not heartless people, we just need to be ruthless so we can defeat ISIS. 

And hey... If we have to drag liberals kicking and screaming back to Iraq, then that's what we need to do. The time for us to be sensitive to feelings is over. It's time to put on the war paint and take care of business.


----------



## Agit8r

He may be an obscenely rich man who has the oratory skills of a common hobo, but I gotta love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.


----------



## Boss

Agit8r said:


> ...love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.



Hmmm... Not sure where you're seeing that. Who is at war? I mean... they ARE having a political primary where the course of the party platform is set... the idea is to present competing viewpoints so the people can decide... but WARRING FACTIONS?   Not seeing that. 

It appeared early on there might be something of a "war" between establishment republicans and conservatives but none of the establishment candidates can get out of single digits. So I am not sure what you think you're seeing other than a typical political primary with a very untypical type of candidate leading.


----------



## Boss

Esmeralda said:


> This is not something to celebrate. This is sad. It is sad you folks think he is someone who should be in the White House, leader of the free world. Sad, very sad.



Funny... Some of us thought the same thing about Hussein Obama.


----------



## jasonnfree

Boss said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, and I think he makes a valid point. If we are going to use our military and our soldiers are going to make the sacrifice, we should be compensated. In 2002, we should have taken the oil... why didn't we? Well, it was because liberals whined "it wouldn't be fairrrrrr!" The Bush administration decided it might look bad... Trump is contesting that argument, and I believe he is right.
> 
> So now, in 2017... He's not talking about taking the oil to compensate for our trouble in 2002. He is suggesting a strategy to defeat ISIS and again, I think it's a good strategy. Take the oil-- he has already justified why it's okay for us to do so and we shouldn't feel bad about it. The revenues are going to be used for such better things... instead of funding terrorism, it will be taking care of families who lost loved ones or have family members permanently scarred by war.
Click to expand...


You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.


----------



## Faun

jasonnfree said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, and I think he makes a valid point. If we are going to use our military and our soldiers are going to make the sacrifice, we should be compensated. In 2002, we should have taken the oil... why didn't we? Well, it was because liberals whined "it wouldn't be fairrrrrr!" The Bush administration decided it might look bad... Trump is contesting that argument, and I believe he is right.
> 
> So now, in 2017... He's not talking about taking the oil to compensate for our trouble in 2002. He is suggesting a strategy to defeat ISIS and again, I think it's a good strategy. Take the oil-- he has already justified why it's okay for us to do so and we shouldn't feel bad about it. The revenues are going to be used for such better things... instead of funding terrorism, it will be taking care of families who lost loved ones or have family members permanently scarred by war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.
Click to expand...

I believe you have that wrong. He doesn't think -- he reacts. He's a Trump apologist who only serves to defend Trump's every word.  In other words, had Trump said, _don't touch the oil, it belongs to Iraq, not us,_ then that is the position he would be defending.


----------



## Boss

jasonnfree said:


> You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.



Yes, I believe in 2002 we should have taken the oil... of course I realize it didn't belong to us, that's why I believe we should have taken it. If it belonged to us, we wouldn't need to take it. Yes, I also realize it's a foreign country... we don't have many wars with domestic countries. Whether we had business there or not, we went there... we were there... we should have taken the oil. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush thought we shouldn't take the oil.... Trump and I think differently. 

Love the way you tried to compare your moronic self with George Washington. Cute... was it meant to be funny? Because I got a good belly laugh when I read it. Who is talking about a war for profit? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was about profit he failed miserably because it cost us $2 trillion and counting. But aside from that, no amount of oil is worth the lives we lost or people's lives who were ruined forever. Capturing the oil is not about profit.


----------



## ABikerSailor

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Trump made his fortune in one of the most competitive and difficult arenas in the world: NYC real estate. He started when Democrats had the city on a glidepath to becoming Calcutta or Detroit. The first deal I remember him doing was converting the piece of crap Commodore Hotel into the city's first -- and only Hyatt. By any estimate he's worth at least $4 billion and all entirely self made

What the fuck do any of his Democrat opponents have in comparison? Organized Communities? Married a sexual predator and kept her mouth shut not to jeopardize her career, and you talk about the War on Women.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?
> 
> The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.
> 
> Not a feasible solution.



Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds. 

Simple. 

What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology. 

Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen.  It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?
> 
> The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.
> 
> Not a feasible solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.
> 
> Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen.  It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.
Click to expand...

You'd be welcomed as liberators!


----------



## Mac1958

ABikerSailor said:


> How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?


We'll get that plan once we've deported 11,000,000 people.


----------



## Boss

idb said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?
> 
> The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.
> 
> Not a feasible solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.
> 
> Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen.  It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd be welcomed as liberators!
Click to expand...


I doubt that since we wouldn't be going to liberate anything except the oil from ISIS.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?
> 
> The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.
> 
> Not a feasible solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.
> 
> Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen.  It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd be welcomed as liberators!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that since we wouldn't be going to liberate anything except the oil from ISIS.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I doubt it as well.


----------



## Agit8r

Boss said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Not sure where you're seeing that. Who is at war? I mean... they ARE having a political primary where the course of the party platform is set... the idea is to present competing viewpoints so the people can decide... but WARRING FACTIONS?   Not seeing that.
> 
> It appeared early on there might be something of a "war" between establishment republicans and conservatives but none of the establishment candidates can get out of single digits. So I am not sure what you think you're seeing other than a typical political primary with a very untypical type of candidate leading.
Click to expand...


Look at the comments on the first page of this discussion.  Look at the feud he has started with Jonah Goldberg.  At the very least, the trolls are taking each other's bait.


----------



## Toro

idb said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?
> 
> The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.
> 
> Not a feasible solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.
> 
> Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen.  It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd be welcomed as liberators!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that since we wouldn't be going to liberate anything except the oil from ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I doubt it as well.
Click to expand...


And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!


----------



## Boss

Toro said:


> And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!



Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.  

Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS?  Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is.  Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.


----------



## Boss

Agit8r said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Not sure where you're seeing that. Who is at war? I mean... they ARE having a political primary where the course of the party platform is set... the idea is to present competing viewpoints so the people can decide... but WARRING FACTIONS?   Not seeing that.
> 
> It appeared early on there might be something of a "war" between establishment republicans and conservatives but none of the establishment candidates can get out of single digits. So I am not sure what you think you're seeing other than a typical political primary with a very untypical type of candidate leading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the comments on the first page of this discussion.  Look at the feud he has started with Jonah Goldberg.  At the very least, the trolls are taking each other's bait.
Click to expand...


I don't know about any feud between Trump and Goldberg... I understand Mr. Goldberg isn't a Trump supporter and that's okay, there are 17 candidates in the race. He will have a vote like everyone, and he can support his guy, I have no problem with that. He is a political columnist for National Review, he's not "God of Conservatism." Nor is Glenn Beck who also doesn't like Trump.  Yes... people on the GOP side have differences of opinion... unlike the knee-jerk party-loyal Democrats who will pull the lever for whoever has the D by their name, regardless of... well, anything.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.
> 
> Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS?  Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is.  Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Boss

idb said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.
> 
> Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS?  Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is.  Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
> What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...


Well in Iraq, there is no "invasion" required since we are already there. Syria is no problem, they have virtually no army. Taking out a bunch of third-world bandits with grenade launchers doesn't sound like it would be much of a task for the most sophisticated military on the planet. While they are all busy trying to find a suitable cave in which to hide for their life... we will be constructing a cordon around the oil fields. Then it becomes a simple matter of protecting the oil fields from an inadequate enemy which will soon be starving to death due to lack of resources. 

Again... I will ask you to present some kind of coherent alternative plan to eliminate ISIS?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Boss....................if you think it's so easy to "vaporize anything within 300 yards" of the oil fields..................I've got just one question.

How many years did you serve in the military, and what rank did you achieve, because you obviously didn't do much if you did anything.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.
> 
> Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS?  Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is.  Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
> What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in Iraq, there is no "invasion" required since we are already there. Syria is no problem, they have virtually no army. Taking out a bunch of third-world bandits with grenade launchers doesn't sound like it would be much of a task for the most sophisticated military on the planet. While they are all busy trying to find a suitable cave in which to hide for their life... we will be constructing a cordon around the oil fields. Then it becomes a simple matter of protecting the oil fields from an inadequate enemy which will soon be starving to death due to lack of resources.
> 
> Again... I will ask you to present some kind of coherent alternative plan to eliminate ISIS?
Click to expand...

No, I like yours...it sounds really simple and low risk.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Boss....................if you think it's so easy to "vaporize anything within 300 yards" of the oil fields..................I've got just one question.
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military, and what rank did you achieve, because you obviously didn't do much if you did anything.



We have technology that would blow your stupid liberal mind. For instance, we have EMP weapons we can configure on drones to simply fly the perimeter of a cordon and essentially "fry" any kind of electromagnetic equipment or machine in the area. That means, no tanks or armored vehicles or vehicles of any kind. No sophisticated weaponry depending on electronics, no radar or night vision technology... they are basically reduced to primitive military tactics with no risk whatsoever to American lives. ....So are they going to come at us with torches and pitchforks?


----------



## ABikerSailor

I see......................you are going to tell me what kind of weapons we have (as well as those you've been hoping that we've got) and not tell me how many years you've served.

Me?  I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy from 1982 until 2002, and not only served with surface ships, but also spent some time with squadrons.

What you are proposing is stupid. And.............if you proposed that same plan to someone who was actually on active duty (or retired like I am) they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.

I'm not a liberal, I'm an Independent.  I also served this country for over 20 years in no less than 4 war zones.

I ask again...................how many years, and in what service did you serve to come up with such bullshit plans for another war?


----------



## Faun

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Boss....................if you think it's so easy to "vaporize anything within 300 yards" of the oil fields..................I've got just one question.
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military, and what rank did you achieve, because you obviously didn't do much if you did anything.


If you really want to know how much that tard knows about the miltary, see if you can get him to name the Marines he's talking about when he said...

_"I'm sure they will understand the petty indifference toward McCain's 'war hero' status is far more important than calling *in support for Marines under attack in Benghazi and leaving them to die*." - Boss_​


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss....................if you think it's so easy to "vaporize anything within 300 yards" of the oil fields..................I've got just one question.
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military, and what rank did you achieve, because you obviously didn't do much if you did anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have technology that would blow your stupid liberal mind. For instance, we have EMP weapons we can configure on drones to simply fly the perimeter of a cordon and essentially "fry" any kind of electromagnetic equipment or machine in the area. That means, no tanks or armored vehicles or vehicles of any kind. No sophisticated weaponry depending on electronics, no radar or night vision technology... they are basically reduced to primitive military tactics with no risk whatsoever to American lives. ....So are they going to come at us with torches and pitchforks?
Click to expand...

You're a fucking imbecile.

It took us 9 years, 32K American casualties, and some $2 trillion to defeat a bunch of insurgents in Iraq armed with little more than "torches and pitchforks."


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> I see......................you are going to tell me what kind of weapons we have (as well as those you've been hoping that we've got) and not tell me how many years you've served.
> 
> Me?  I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy from 1982 until 2002, and not only served with surface ships, but also spent some time with squadrons.
> 
> What you are proposing is stupid. And.............if you proposed that same plan to someone who was actually on active duty (or retired like I am) they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, I'm an Independent.  I also served this country for over 20 years in no less than 4 war zones.
> 
> I ask again...................how many years, and in what service did you serve to come up with such bullshit plans for another war?



It seems like someone with your absolutely stellar military background would be able to articulate some kind of brilliant strategy to eliminate ISIS... but nope... you simply want to dismiss any and all ideas. Makes me think you really don't have any idea how to eliminate ISIS, so why bother? 

Hey... it's okay, there are lots of really clueless people who have served in the military and I thank you for your service to the country... but I highly doubt you have been privy to our most advanced weapon secrets. I doubt anyone you know, active or retired, are totally aware of all we have available. This isn't a matter of my military e-dick being bigger than yours... it's simply a matter of national security and the fact that the general public doesn't know all our military secrets. 

EMP weapons are not some kind of science fiction "dream" technology. Boeing, who helped develop it, has confirmed it does exist. If you didn't know about it you know about it now.


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss....................if you think it's so easy to "vaporize anything within 300 yards" of the oil fields..................I've got just one question.
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military, and what rank did you achieve, because you obviously didn't do much if you did anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have technology that would blow your stupid liberal mind. For instance, we have EMP weapons we can configure on drones to simply fly the perimeter of a cordon and essentially "fry" any kind of electromagnetic equipment or machine in the area. That means, no tanks or armored vehicles or vehicles of any kind. No sophisticated weaponry depending on electronics, no radar or night vision technology... they are basically reduced to primitive military tactics with no risk whatsoever to American lives. ....So are they going to come at us with torches and pitchforks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking imbecile.
> 
> It took us 9 years, 32K American casualties, and some $2 trillion to defeat a bunch of insurgents in Iraq armed with little more than "torches and pitchforks."
Click to expand...


Yes, but we were trying to take control of an entire country and help establish democracy... this wouldn't be that.  We don't need to take control of anything but oil fields. We can do that easy.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to pull out and let them kill themselves, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.  They don't have the ability to cross the oceans and get here to America.

Stellar military background?  Well.....................if you're good, you get to do independent duty, if you're really good, you can do 2 independent duty tours back to back.  I went from a PSD at Newport RI to an MSC vessel in Norfolk (1st independent duty tour) to being the LPO at a MEPS in Amarillo TX (2nd independent duty tour, both of which are usually filled by an E-7 or better and I did both of them as an E-6).  Yeah...............I was that good.

As far as having knowledge of our most advanced weapons secrets?  Nope, don't have a clue, but I do know about things that happen above my paygrade (at least during the time I was in), because I was a member of the PRP program, which meant that I worked with special weapons.

And...........................no.......................it's not a question of your e-dick being bigger than mine, it's a question of whether or not you know tactics, diplomacy, and whether or not you've served in the military.

And yeah.......................EMP weapons do exist, but they are a one off kind of thing.  If you wanted to take out the entire grid of the United States, detonate a 10 megaton nuke about 10 or 15 miles above the center of the United States.

If you don't want to detonate a nuke?  Well..............your choices are limited, because everything that uses an engine has to have electricity, and an EMP blast will take it out, so your brilliant statement about drones using EMP is bullshit, because as soon as they went off, they would fall out of the sky and be destroyed.

Again....................I ask........................how many years and in what service did you serve, because you sound like a total idiot trying to pass themselves off as someone who knows what they're talking about.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> ...they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.



Well that's just it... you haven't really told me why that plan will fail. You simply intimated it couldn't be done and it would fail because you think it would. Then you lamented how it would upset people and make them angry at us. Seems like such a futile loser of a plan would make them jubilant. 

In fact, everything suggested, you simply stomp your feet and demand that "IT CAN'T BE DONE!"  So.......... are we supposed to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to living with the abhorrent atrocities committed by ISIS from now on? You're not suggesting ANY kind of plan or solution.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to pull out and let them kill themselves, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.  They don't have the ability to cross the oceans and get here to America.
> 
> Stellar military background?  Well.....................if you're good, you get to do independent duty, if you're really good, you can do 2 independent duty tours back to back.  I went from a PSD at Newport RI to an MSC vessel in Norfolk (1st independent duty tour) to being the LPO at a MEPS in Amarillo TX (2nd independent duty tour, both of which are usually filled by an E-7 or better and I did both of them as an E-6).  Yeah...............I was that good.
> 
> As far as having knowledge of our most advanced weapons secrets?  Nope, don't have a clue, but I do know about things that happen above my paygrade (at least during the time I was in), because I was a member of the PRP program, which meant that I worked with special weapons.
> 
> And...........................no.......................it's not a question of your e-dick being bigger than mine, it's a question of whether or not you know tactics, diplomacy, and whether or not you've served in the military.
> 
> And yeah.......................EMP weapons do exist, but they are a one off kind of thing.  If you wanted to take out the entire grid of the United States, detonate a 10 megaton nuke about 10 or 15 miles above the center of the United States.
> 
> If you don't want to detonate a nuke?  Well..............your choices are limited, because everything that uses an engine has to have electricity, and an EMP blast will take it out, so your brilliant statement about drones using EMP is bullshit, because as soon as they went off, they would fall out of the sky and be destroyed.
> 
> Again....................I ask........................how many years and in what service did you serve, because you sound like a total idiot trying to pass themselves off as someone who knows what they're talking about.



Total rubbish... you know NOTHING about EMP weapons.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to *pull out and let them kill themselves*, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.



Which is precisely what we did 8 years ago... 

It doesn't work.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to pull out and let them kill themselves, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.  They don't have the ability to cross the oceans and get here to America.
> 
> Stellar military background?  Well.....................if you're good, you get to do independent duty, if you're really good, you can do 2 independent duty tours back to back.  I went from a PSD at Newport RI to an MSC vessel in Norfolk (1st independent duty tour) to being the LPO at a MEPS in Amarillo TX (2nd independent duty tour, both of which are usually filled by an E-7 or better and I did both of them as an E-6).  Yeah...............I was that good.
> 
> As far as having knowledge of our most advanced weapons secrets?  Nope, don't have a clue, but I do know about things that happen above my paygrade (at least during the time I was in), because I was a member of the PRP program, which meant that I worked with special weapons.
> 
> And...........................no.......................it's not a question of your e-dick being bigger than mine, it's a question of whether or not you know tactics, diplomacy, and whether or not you've served in the military.
> 
> And yeah.......................EMP weapons do exist, but they are a one off kind of thing.  If you wanted to take out the entire grid of the United States, detonate a 10 megaton nuke about 10 or 15 miles above the center of the United States.
> 
> If you don't want to detonate a nuke?  Well..............your choices are limited, because everything that uses an engine has to have electricity, and an EMP blast will take it out, so your brilliant statement about drones using EMP is bullshit, because as soon as they went off, they would fall out of the sky and be destroyed.
> 
> Again....................I ask........................how many years and in what service did you serve, because you sound like a total idiot trying to pass themselves off as someone who knows what they're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total rubbish... you know NOTHING about EMP weapons.
Click to expand...

Spits a fucking retard. 

Tell me again ... what were the names of the Marines killed in the Benghazi attack?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just it... you haven't really told me why that plan will fail. You simply intimated it couldn't be done and it would fail because you think it would. Then you lamented how it would upset people and make them angry at us. Seems like such a futile loser of a plan would make them jubilant.
> 
> In fact, everything suggested, you simply stomp your feet and demand that "IT CAN'T BE DONE!"  So.......... are we supposed to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to living with the abhorrent atrocities committed by ISIS from now on? You're not suggesting ANY kind of plan or solution.
Click to expand...


Actually, I DID tell you why it would fail, but if you need a refresher, here it is.......................

Oil comes from the ground in things called "wells" that are an integral part of the country that they are drilled in.

If you wish to make the oil yours, you must take over the well, ensure that you have enough firepower to defend it from those you took it from, and figure out how to have a safe passage for the oil that you're "liberating" from the locals.

Oh yeah.................you've also got to have the firepower to defend those wells, and be willing to stay there until the wells are used up.

Why?  Because the people you invaded are pissed that you're taking their oil and messing with their wealth.

No.................it can't be done without a whole bunch of money and manpower that would far dwarf the benefit we MIGHT get from taking over those wells.

Again I ask..................how many years and in what branch of the military did you serve?


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to *pull out and let them kill themselves*, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely what we did 8 years ago...
> 
> It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot.

8 years ago, Bush was sending more troops into Iraq as part of "the surge." In fact, it was 8 years ago this September, our troop strength in Iraq hit it's all-time peak during the war.

You know -- the exact opposite of pulling out to let them kill themselves. 

You really have no clue how stupid you look, do ya?


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Tell me again ... what were the names of the Marines killed in the Benghazi attack?



I've already awarded you brownie points for that error, Faun. You don't keep getting credits. It was an Ambassador, a Foreign Services officer and two ex-Navy Seals who were killed because the Secretary of State failed to send support in full knowledge of the situation. She tried, along with others in the Administration, to blame the attacks on a video. This proved to be a fabricated lie... then we have the makings of a conspiracy and cover-up that makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout. (That's not MY opinion, that's basically from the mouth of Bob Woodward.) 

So... To summarize... you scored a point because you caught the error Boss made when he said "Marines" were killed. And let's be clear, Marines have been killed by radical Islamic terrorists. But what is more important than any of this is that Faun be given credit and praise for finding an error in one of Boss' posts. THAT is such a rare and unusual thing that it deserves our recognition. 

So... Hurrah for Faun! Marines weren't killed in Benghazi on Hillary's watch!


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just it... you haven't really told me why that plan will fail. You simply intimated it couldn't be done and it would fail because you think it would. Then you lamented how it would upset people and make them angry at us. Seems like such a futile loser of a plan would make them jubilant.
> 
> In fact, everything suggested, you simply stomp your feet and demand that "IT CAN'T BE DONE!"  So.......... are we supposed to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to living with the abhorrent atrocities committed by ISIS from now on? You're not suggesting ANY kind of plan or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I DID tell you why it would fail, but if you need a refresher, here it is.......................
> 
> Oil comes from the ground in things called "wells" that are an integral part of the country that they are drilled in.
> 
> If you wish to make the oil yours, you must take over the well, ensure that you have enough firepower to defend it from those you took it from, and figure out how to have a safe passage for the oil that you're "liberating" from the locals.
> 
> Oh yeah.................you've also got to have the firepower to defend those wells, and be willing to stay there until the wells are used up.
> 
> Why?  Because the people you invaded are pissed that you're taking their oil and messing with their wealth.
> 
> No.................it can't be done without a whole bunch of money and manpower that would far dwarf the benefit we MIGHT get from taking over those wells.
> 
> Again I ask..................how many years and in what branch of the military did you serve?
Click to expand...


IT CAN BE DONE... with minimal fire power and minimal troops. Money is not an issue, oil is  very valuable. 

The benefit is, we starve ISIS to death... they have no source of funding other than the oil. That will effectively eliminate any threat they pose. No oil = No ISIS Jihad.  And of course they wouldn't like it none too much.... I don't care about what they like.


----------



## Boss

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to *pull out and let them kill themselves*, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely what we did 8 years ago...
> 
> It doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 8 years ago, Bush was sending more troops into Iraq as part of "the surge." In fact, it was 8 years ago this September, our troop strength in Iraq hit it's all-time peak during the war.
> 
> You know -- the exact opposite of pulling out to let them kill themselves.
> 
> You really have no clue how stupid you look, do ya?
Click to expand...


What has been the policy under the Obama administration?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Marines WERE killed in Beruit Lebanon under Reagan's watch.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, I DID tell you why it would fail...



Again... you gave me your opinion that it wouldn't work.  You've not explained why it would fail other than your opinion it wouldn't work. I have asked you three times now to present us with some alternative plan... all you've come up with is "leave them alone-- let them kill each other." And honestly, that plan doesn't work. They haven't declared Jihad against themselves.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Marines WERE killed in Beruit Lebanon under Reagan's watch.



There was also a price paid for that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just it... you haven't really told me why that plan will fail. You simply intimated it couldn't be done and it would fail because you think it would. Then you lamented how it would upset people and make them angry at us. Seems like such a futile loser of a plan would make them jubilant.
> 
> In fact, everything suggested, you simply stomp your feet and demand that "IT CAN'T BE DONE!"  So.......... are we supposed to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to living with the abhorrent atrocities committed by ISIS from now on? You're not suggesting ANY kind of plan or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I DID tell you why it would fail, but if you need a refresher, here it is.......................
> 
> Oil comes from the ground in things called "wells" that are an integral part of the country that they are drilled in.
> 
> If you wish to make the oil yours, you must take over the well, ensure that you have enough firepower to defend it from those you took it from, and figure out how to have a safe passage for the oil that you're "liberating" from the locals.
> 
> Oh yeah.................you've also got to have the firepower to defend those wells, and be willing to stay there until the wells are used up.
> 
> Why?  Because the people you invaded are pissed that you're taking their oil and messing with their wealth.
> 
> No.................it can't be done without a whole bunch of money and manpower that would far dwarf the benefit we MIGHT get from taking over those wells.
> 
> Again I ask..................how many years and in what branch of the military did you serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT CAN BE DONE... with minimal fire power and minimal troops. Money is not an issue, oil is  very valuable.
> 
> The benefit is, we starve ISIS to death... they have no source of funding other than the oil. That will effectively eliminate any threat they pose. No oil = No ISIS Jihad.  And of course they wouldn't like it none too much.... I don't care about what they like.
Click to expand...


Okay rockstar......................tell us, because you said you knew......................how many troops should we send (you said minimal fire power and minimal troops), and you said that money isn't an issue.

What if the price of oil drops from it's current price to 20 bucks a barrel?  It's not very valuable if the bottom drops out on the market.

And no.....................I'm sure that ISIL has another way of surviving other than oil, but then again, short sighted war mongering idiots who wish they had served seems to think they have the solution.

Tell ya what...............sit back and let those who know about such things discuss them.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again ... what were the names of the Marines killed in the Benghazi attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already awarded you brownie points for that error, Faun. You don't keep getting credits. It was an Ambassador, a Foreign Services officer and two ex-Navy Seals who were killed because the Secretary of State failed to send support in full knowledge of the situation. She tried, along with others in the Administration, to blame the attacks on a video. This proved to be a fabricated lie... then we have the makings of a conspiracy and cover-up that makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout. (That's not MY opinion, that's basically from the mouth of Bob Woodward.)
> 
> So... To summarize... you scored a point because you caught the error Boss made when he said "Marines" were killed. And let's be clear, Marines have been killed by radical Islamic terrorists. But what is more important than any of this is that Faun be given credit and praise for finding an error in one of Boss' posts. THAT is such a rare and unusual thing that it deserves our recognition.
> 
> So... Hurrah for Faun! Marines weren't killed in Benghazi on Hillary's watch!
Click to expand...

You really think there's only one brownie in that bag??



It exemplifies just how big of a fucking imbecile you really are as you spout some of the most idiotic shit I've ever read; about stealing Middle-eastern oil. It shows, beyond any shadow of doubt, that you are by far, the biggest retard on this forum. Someone who acts like he knows something when in fact, you don't know your ass from your elbow.

You can expect to be reminded of what a moron you are every time you spread your douchebaggery around and insult your betters for trying to educate your dumb ass.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines WERE killed in Beruit Lebanon under Reagan's watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was also a price paid for that.
Click to expand...

What price? Invading Granada?


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my brilliant strategy would be to *pull out and let them kill themselves*, because they don't really pose a problem to this country at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely what we did 8 years ago...
> 
> It doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 8 years ago, Bush was sending more troops into Iraq as part of "the surge." In fact, it was 8 years ago this September, our troop strength in Iraq hit it's all-time peak during the war.
> 
> You know -- the exact opposite of pulling out to let them kill themselves.
> 
> You really have no clue how stupid you look, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been the policy under the Obama administration?
Click to expand...

To not get any more Americans killed in Iraq.


----------



## Boss

ABikerSailor said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they would tell you that you plan will fail for the same reasons I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just it... you haven't really told me why that plan will fail. You simply intimated it couldn't be done and it would fail because you think it would. Then you lamented how it would upset people and make them angry at us. Seems like such a futile loser of a plan would make them jubilant.
> 
> In fact, everything suggested, you simply stomp your feet and demand that "IT CAN'T BE DONE!"  So.......... are we supposed to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to living with the abhorrent atrocities committed by ISIS from now on? You're not suggesting ANY kind of plan or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I DID tell you why it would fail, but if you need a refresher, here it is.......................
> 
> Oil comes from the ground in things called "wells" that are an integral part of the country that they are drilled in.
> 
> If you wish to make the oil yours, you must take over the well, ensure that you have enough firepower to defend it from those you took it from, and figure out how to have a safe passage for the oil that you're "liberating" from the locals.
> 
> Oh yeah.................you've also got to have the firepower to defend those wells, and be willing to stay there until the wells are used up.
> 
> Why?  Because the people you invaded are pissed that you're taking their oil and messing with their wealth.
> 
> No.................it can't be done without a whole bunch of money and manpower that would far dwarf the benefit we MIGHT get from taking over those wells.
> 
> Again I ask..................how many years and in what branch of the military did you serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT CAN BE DONE... with minimal fire power and minimal troops. Money is not an issue, oil is  very valuable.
> 
> The benefit is, we starve ISIS to death... they have no source of funding other than the oil. That will effectively eliminate any threat they pose. No oil = No ISIS Jihad.  And of course they wouldn't like it none too much.... I don't care about what they like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay rockstar......................tell us, because you said you knew......................how many troops should we send (you said minimal fire power and minimal troops), and you said that money isn't an issue.
> 
> What if the price of oil drops from it's current price to 20 bucks a barrel?  It's not very valuable if the bottom drops out on the market.
> 
> And no.....................I'm sure that ISIL has another way of surviving other than oil, but then again, short sighted war mongering idiots who wish they had served seems to think they have the solution.
> 
> Tell ya what...............sit back and let those who know about such things discuss them.
Click to expand...


I can't answer your questions because I'm not privy to all the data.  I do know that had MacArthur or Patton been tasked such a mission by their president, they wouldn't have said "it can't be done!" 

Price of oil: Doesn't matter... we're not there for the profitability of the oil. 

ISIS has very little means of survival without the oil. They are aided by some banks who funnel money to them from Iran and others... we can take care of those very easily. This is not hard to do... it simply takes someone with the courage and balls to do it. Someone who won't sit there wringing their hands worrying about what others think or not wanting to offend anyone. Or worse, someone who feels it's better to just ignore the situation and pretend they don't exist because you're too scared to try and do anything about them. 

Now... I've not talked about any "warmongering" and neither has Trump. In fact, Donald Trump was one of a very few who said we shouldn't go into Iraq from the start. This isn't about warmongering, nation building, installing pro-US dictators, funding enemies or allies... this is about knocking the financial underpinning from beneath ISIS and crushing them. It's a MUCH better plan than your plan of doing nothing.


----------



## Esmeralda

Boss said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not something to celebrate. This is sad. It is sad you folks think he is someone who should be in the White House, leader of the free world. Sad, very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... Some of us thought the same thing about Hussein Obama.
Click to expand...

You people  have to be insane to compare Obama to Trump.  Trump is a celebrity, a no nothing idiot with a big mouth.  Obama is a Harvad educated attorney with decades of experience in community service and politics.  A serious man, not a buffoon.  Obama is a religious family man.  Trump has no religion and has been married multiple times.  He is everything that is wrong with society. 

He is greedy, avaricious and lacking in morals, values, or the intelligence for anything except making money—for himself.  For one thing, you want him to fix the economy. The economy is already fixed, by Obama, it is just not happening overnight.  Only idiots think such a drastic failure of an economy can be a quick fix. 

For another thing, the President needs to be able to do a whole lot more than fix the economy.  Trump would alienate just about every other country on the planet, and he would not know how to manage any other social issues within our country. 

You all won’t admit it, but Obama has been a good president, and that is backed up by ratings by presidential historians.  He is rated about 18, right in the middle. That he is a failure is a myth you all rant and that is perpetuated by your loud mouthed, right wing political pundits.


----------



## Toro

idb said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.
> 
> Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS?  Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is.  Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
> What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...


Nothing at all. 

Just like when Bush invaded Iraq.


----------



## Geaux4it

Toro said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we'd do it without _any_ casualties at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.
> 
> Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS?  Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is.  Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
> What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing at all.
> 
> Just like when Bush invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...


I just wanted to make post 667

That 666 was freaking me out

EDIT= FAIL effort

Carry on

-Geaux


----------



## Boss

Oh boy! This will be fun.... 



Esmeralda said:


> You people  have to be insane to compare Obama to Trump.  Trump is a celebrity, a no nothing idiot with a big mouth.  Obama is a Harvad educated attorney with decades of experience in community service and politics.


Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wharton is widely regarded as one of the world's top institutions for business education. In 2014-2015, the _U.S. News & World Report_ ranked Wharton's undergraduate program first,[60] MBA program first,[61] and executive MBA program also first,[62] making Wharton the only school to ever be ranked number one in all three categories simultaneously. The undergraduate program at the Wharton School has been ranked number one by _U.S. News & World Report_ every single year since inception.[60] The _Financial Times_ has ranked the Wharton School first in the world in every single year between 2000 and 2009, and again in 2011, conferring Wharton with the best overall performance in the rankings.[63] The Wharton School has also been ranked number one by _Bloomberg Businessweek_ four times in a row.[64]

Wharton is well known for its standing in finance education. The school has been listed first on the _U.S. News & World Report's_ "best finance programs" list each consecutive year from its commencement.[65] Similarly, Wharton has maintained its top position in the finance specialization rankings of the _QS Global 200 Business Schools Report 2013/14_, prompting _QS_ to declare that "Wharton reigns supreme in finance, topping the table again".[66] The _New York Times_has deemed Wharton's undergraduate population as "the closest thing that exists to a Wall Street farm team", while _Poets & Quants_ has described Wharton as offering the "single best degree" for an education and career in finance, marked by an "intense, competitive culture" within the student body.[67]

Wharton also receives high reputation scores from academics and recruiters each year.[68] According to _Forbes_, approximately 90% of billionaires in the finance industry obtained their business degrees from one of three Ivy League institutions: Wharton, Harvard Business School or Columbia Business School, with Wharton alumni accounting for the majority.[69] Students from the Wharton School earn the highest starting salaries of any business school in the United States, based on comprehensive employment data compiled by _U.S. News & World Report_.[43][47]

The Wharton School has been ranked first for its Executive MBA Program in 2011, 2012, and 2013 by _Poets & Quants_, in an integrated ranking system that takes into account data provided by _U.S. News & World Report_, _Bloomberg BusinessWeek_, the _Wall Street Journal_, and the _Financial Times_.[70]

Trump was top of his class at one of the nation's most prestigious Ivy League business schools. Obama refused to release his college transcripts... we don't know what kind of student he was... other than he belonged to the "Choom Gang" (pot heads).



> A serious man, not a buffoon.  Obama is a religious family man.  Trump has no religion and has been married multiple times.  He is everything that is wrong with society.



Yes... We met Obama's preacher! 



> He is greedy, avaricious and lacking in morals, values, or the intelligence for anything except making money—for himself.  For one thing, you want him to fix the economy. The economy is already fixed, by Obama, it is just not happening overnight.  Only idiots think such a drastic failure of an economy can be a quick fix.



Well, you see... We're not satisfied with the way Obama has fixed it. It's sub-par... inadequate... not up to our standards... shoddy and half-assed. Black unemployment has never been so high. And all we get from you are excuses and more blaming Bush. We're told that we can't do better, we have to resign ourselves to this new economy and jobless "recovery" because that's just how things are now. Some of us will not accept that this is as good as it gets, the best we can do. 



> For another thing, the President needs to be able to do a whole lot more than fix the economy.  Trump would alienate just about every other country on the planet, and he would not know how to manage any other social issues within our country.



Well Trump hasn't "alienated" any of the many countries his organizations have business dealings with. He is world-renown for his business negotiations and deals. You can't effectively work deals with people you alienate. 

Managing social issues? Is that what you believe a president is supposed to be doing? Deciding for us, what we can believe and accept from a social or moral standpoint? That's a president's job, is it? You see, I think we fundamentally disagree on this as well... I want a president who DOESN'T dabble in social issues and focuses on more important things. I don't need someone to lecture me or tell me how I feel about social issues. 



> You all won’t admit it, but Obama has been a good president, and that is backed up by ratings by presidential historians.  He is rated about 18, right in the middle. That he is a failure is a myth you all rant and that is perpetuated by your loud mouthed, right wing political pundits.



Obama has been the worst president in history.


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> Well, you see... We're not satisfied with the way Obama has fixed it. It's sub-par... inadequate... not up to our standards... shoddy and half-assed. Black unemployment has never been so high. And all we get from you are excuses and more blaming Bush. We're told that we can't do better, we have to resign ourselves to this new economy and jobless "recovery" because that's just how things are now. Some of us will not accept that this is as good as it gets, the best we can do.


You're fucking deranged. 

Clearly, unemployment is no longer an issue with you so you thought you could make a point by zeroing in on black unemployment because total unemployment is within the range of full employment.

But like your delusional belief that there were Marines killed in the Benghazi attack, and your delusional belief that Bush pulled troops out in 2007, here too you demonstrate abject ignorance on yet another subject you know nothing about. Despite your idiotic claim that, _*"Black unemployment has never been so high,"*_ reality is actually the polar opposite of what you claim.

Black unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. The BLS has tracked this statistic since 1972 and the average unemployment rate since that time is *12.3%*. It was *12.7% * when Obama became president. Even worse for your psychiatric prognosis is the reality that the only times black unemployment is lower than it is now was during the dot-com bubble and the real-estate bubble, when those bubbles were artificially lowering unemployment.








Boss said:


> Obama has been the worst president in history.


Great.  More Obama Derangement Syndrome symptoms surface. Let me know when Obama's job approval rating sinks as low as 19%, the all-time low JAR for any president.


----------



## Esmeralda

Boss said:


> Oh boy! This will be fun....
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people  have to be insane to compare Obama to Trump.  Trump is a celebrity, a no nothing idiot with a big mouth.  Obama is a Harvad educated attorney with decades of experience in community service and politics.
> 
> 
> 
> Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wharton is widely regarded as one of the world's top institutions for business education. In 2014-2015, the _U.S. News & World Report_ ranked Wharton's undergraduate program first,[60] MBA program first,[61] and executive MBA program also first,[62] making Wharton the only school to ever be ranked number one in all three categories simultaneously. The undergraduate program at the Wharton School has been ranked number one by _U.S. News & World Report_ every single year since inception.[60] The _Financial Times_ has ranked the Wharton School first in the world in every single year between 2000 and 2009, and again in 2011, conferring Wharton with the best overall performance in the rankings.[63] The Wharton School has also been ranked number one by _Bloomberg Businessweek_ four times in a row.[64]
> 
> Wharton is well known for its standing in finance education. The school has been listed first on the _U.S. News & World Report's_ "best finance programs" list each consecutive year from its commencement.[65] Similarly, Wharton has maintained its top position in the finance specialization rankings of the _QS Global 200 Business Schools Report 2013/14_, prompting _QS_ to declare that "Wharton reigns supreme in finance, topping the table again".[66] The _New York Times_has deemed Wharton's undergraduate population as "the closest thing that exists to a Wall Street farm team", while _Poets & Quants_ has described Wharton as offering the "single best degree" for an education and career in finance, marked by an "intense, competitive culture" within the student body.[67]
> 
> Wharton also receives high reputation scores from academics and recruiters each year.[68] According to _Forbes_, approximately 90% of billionaires in the finance industry obtained their business degrees from one of three Ivy League institutions: Wharton, Harvard Business School or Columbia Business School, with Wharton alumni accounting for the majority.[69] Students from the Wharton School earn the highest starting salaries of any business school in the United States, based on comprehensive employment data compiled by _U.S. News & World Report_.[43][47]
> 
> The Wharton School has been ranked first for its Executive MBA Program in 2011, 2012, and 2013 by _Poets & Quants_, in an integrated ranking system that takes into account data provided by _U.S. News & World Report_, _Bloomberg BusinessWeek_, the _Wall Street Journal_, and the _Financial Times_.[70]
> 
> Trump was top of his class at one of the nation's most prestigious Ivy League business schools. Obama refused to release his college transcripts... we don't know what kind of student he was... other than he belonged to the "Choom Gang" (pot heads).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A serious man, not a buffoon.  Obama is a religious family man.  Trump has no religion and has been married multiple times.  He is everything that is wrong with society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... We met Obama's preacher!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is greedy, avaricious and lacking in morals, values, or the intelligence for anything except making money—for himself.  For one thing, you want him to fix the economy. The economy is already fixed, by Obama, it is just not happening overnight.  Only idiots think such a drastic failure of an economy can be a quick fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you see... We're not satisfied with the way Obama has fixed it. It's sub-par... inadequate... not up to our standards... shoddy and half-assed. Black unemployment has never been so high. And all we get from you are excuses and more blaming Bush. We're told that we can't do better, we have to resign ourselves to this new economy and jobless "recovery" because that's just how things are now. Some of us will not accept that this is as good as it gets, the best we can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For another thing, the President needs to be able to do a whole lot more than fix the economy.  Trump would alienate just about every other country on the planet, and he would not know how to manage any other social issues within our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Trump hasn't "alienated" any of the many countries his organizations have business dealings with. He is world-renown for his business negotiations and deals. You can't effectively work deals with people you alienate.
> 
> Managing social issues? Is that what you believe a president is supposed to be doing? Deciding for us, what we can believe and accept from a social or moral standpoint? That's a president's job, is it? You see, I think we fundamentally disagree on this as well... I want a president who DOESN'T dabble in social issues and focuses on more important things. I don't need someone to lecture me or tell me how I feel about social issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You all won’t admit it, but Obama has been a good president, and that is backed up by ratings by presidential historians.  He is rated about 18, right in the middle. That he is a failure is a myth you all rant and that is perpetuated by your loud mouthed, right wing political pundits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has been the worst president in history.
Click to expand...

Being a business major does not qualify anyone for being president.

No way at all is Obama the worst president in US  history. That's the lie your right wing gurus tell you, and they are lying to you. The fact you all believe the lie says a whole lot about you, about you all being fools.

In history, Obama will be regarded as a good president. Someone like GW Bush, however, is already rated very, very low and will stay there.

Your entire rant is a fools paradise.  You have no clue about the truth: turn off Rush and his pals and start  paying attention to the real world.

Trump is a freak show. No one of any intelligence supports him.  No one.


----------



## Boss

Esmeralda said:


> No one of any intelligence supports him. No one.



Well this should be a piece of cake for the smartest woman in the world, right? 

So it begs the question... why are you all so worried?


----------



## Esmeralda

Boss said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one of any intelligence supports him. No one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this should be a piece of cake for the smartest woman in the world, right?
> 
> So it begs the question... why are you all so worried?
Click to expand...

LMAO  No one is worried he will be elected president.  If anyone is worried about anything, it is the state of mind of the GOP and/or rightwing in this country, that they are taking this buffoon seriously.  It's certainly a concern that with Trump performing so well in the polls, it indicates that the entire party seems to have lost its collective mind.  I worry about that because it begs the question of the state of the US consciousness in general. People around the world, if they are aware of this situation, must be laughing at us. 

But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.  He's entertainment, fodder for jokes, that's all.


----------



## Boss

Esmeralda said:


> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.



Me thinks thou dost protest too much. 

It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you. If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why? 

I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.


----------



## idb

Boss said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you. If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why?
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...it looks like the GOP and Fox are doing all the heavy lifting for the Left.

Mind you, Trump is spanking them soundly.
They've come up against someone using their own tactics against them and they don't yet have an answer.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you. If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why?
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.
Click to expand...


Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?



Not in the least but it doesn't change the psychology. If things were only posted on this board which were actually going to sway something, this would be a very quiet place. People are seldom swayed by what is posted here. Yet, that is the motive of every poster, to sway opinion. 

Now, it seems to me, IF Trump were the "joke and clown" who is most easily defeated by Hillary, Bernie or Joe, he would be the last person you'd want to attack right now. Attack Jeb... Attack Carson and Cruz... Prop Trump up and sing his praises... or just shut up and don't say anything... Let the GOP nominate him! That's what you claim to WANT... but this is not what we're seeing. 

If Trump were running 3rd or 4th, I doubt we'd see anyone posting anything about him. But he is leading in every poll by a good margin. He is now polling ahead of Clinton in Florida. At least three times he has said things which would normally tank the average candidate.. damn if he doesn't come out even more popular. I think he scares the shit out of Democrats AND GOP elite. He is a political establishment nightmare come true. 

To me... it is HILARIOUS when they try to deny this.


----------



## Esmeralda

Boss said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> *It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you.* If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why?
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.
Click to expand...

OMG You people are fucking sick.  Blind as bats, willingly blind.  For fuck's sake get a grip on reality.

No one is trying to destroy  him; we are making fun of him, ridiculing him, and ridiculing those who support him.  He's gonna destroy himself w/o our help. But, really, there isn't anything to destroy, just a gasbag.

It's just pathetic. It's really just pathetic  that you take this guy seriously. He's truly a clown, a buffoon.  Why are you so stupid to take such a gasbag fool seriously?  That's the question.


The fact is that I and any liberal I know would be pleased to see  him run against Hillary. He'd lose so badly and so easily it wouldn't even be funny. That you all do not see what he is and how he compares to someone like Mrs. Clinton as far as a serious candidate, that's just amazing, just absolutely amazing. It's like you have a kindergarten mentality when it comes to politics.


----------



## Esmeralda

idb said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you. If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why?
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmm...it looks like the GOP and Fox are doing all the heavy lifting for the Left.
> 
> Mind you, Trump is spanking them soundly.
> They've come up against someone using their own tactics against them and they don't yet have an answer.
Click to expand...



Boy, you guys are really, really out of touch with reality.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least but it doesn't change the psychology. If things were only posted on this board which were actually going to sway something, this would be a very quiet place. People are seldom swayed by what is posted here. Yet, that is the motive of every poster, to sway opinion.
> 
> Now, it seems to me, IF Trump were the "joke and clown" who is most easily defeated by Hillary, Bernie or Joe, he would be the last person you'd want to attack right now. Attack Jeb... Attack Carson and Cruz... Prop Trump up and sing his praises... or just shut up and don't say anything... Let the GOP nominate him! That's what you claim to WANT... but this is not what we're seeing.
> 
> If Trump were running 3rd or 4th, I doubt we'd see anyone posting anything about him. But he is leading in every poll by a good margin. He is now polling ahead of Clinton in Florida. At least three times he has said things which would normally tank the average candidate.. damn if he doesn't come out even more popular. I think he scares the shit out of Democrats AND GOP elite. He is a political establishment nightmare come true.
> 
> To me... it is HILARIOUS when they try to deny this.
Click to expand...


So you expect people to go to a political message board and either not discuss one of the most popular political topics of the day, or lie about that topic, or they are afraid?  This based on the idea that only someone afraid of Trump would say bad things about him if people really consider him a joke or clown because they should support him to try and get him elected the Republican candidate, even though we've already established that what happens on this board is going to have next to no effect on the primaries?

That is some fairly twisted logic.  Besides, I have seen one or two posters who seem to have decided to pretend support for Trump here.


----------



## jasonnfree

Boss said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe in 2002 we should have taken the oil... of course I realize it didn't belong to us, that's why I believe we should have taken it. If it belonged to us, we wouldn't need to take it. Yes, I also realize it's a foreign country... we don't have many wars with domestic countries. Whether we had business there or not, we went there... we were there... we should have taken the oil. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush thought we shouldn't take the oil.... Trump and I think differently.
> 
> Love the way you tried to compare your moronic self with George Washington. Cute... was it meant to be funny? Because I got a good belly laugh when I read it. Who is talking about a war for profit? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was about profit he failed miserably because it cost us $2 trillion and counting. But aside from that, no amount of oil is worth the lives we lost or people's lives who were ruined forever. Capturing the oil is not about profit.
Click to expand...


USA's involvement in the middle east has been altruistic then?  Explain that one and I'll  stop considering you the apprentice, not the boss.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least but it doesn't change the psychology. If things were only posted on this board which were actually going to sway something, this would be a very quiet place. People are seldom swayed by what is posted here. Yet, that is the motive of every poster, to sway opinion.
> 
> Now, it seems to me, IF Trump were the "joke and clown" who is most easily defeated by Hillary, Bernie or Joe, he would be the last person you'd want to attack right now. Attack Jeb... Attack Carson and Cruz... Prop Trump up and sing his praises... or just shut up and don't say anything... Let the GOP nominate him! That's what you claim to WANT... but this is not what we're seeing.
> 
> If Trump were running 3rd or 4th, I doubt we'd see anyone posting anything about him. But he is leading in every poll by a good margin. He is now polling ahead of Clinton in Florida. At least three times he has said things which would normally tank the average candidate.. damn if he doesn't come out even more popular. I think he scares the shit out of Democrats AND GOP elite. He is a political establishment nightmare come true.
> 
> To me... it is HILARIOUS when they try to deny this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you expect people to go to a political message board and either not discuss one of the most popular political topics of the day, or lie about that topic, or they are afraid?  This based on the idea that only someone afraid of Trump would say bad things about him if people really consider him a joke or clown because they should support him to try and get him elected the Republican candidate, even though we've already established that what happens on this board is going to have next to no effect on the primaries?
> 
> That is some fairly twisted logic.  Besides, I have seen one or two posters who seem to have decided to pretend support for Trump here.
Click to expand...


Back up... We haven't "established" anything. The motive of every poster is to sway opinion, whether that is ever accomplished here or not. Are you posting just to see yourself post? No, you want to change my mind. Whether you change my mind or not, it doesn't change your motive. 

Okay... so now, let's swap places for a second... Let's imagine the following scenario: Hillary goes to jail, Bernie has a heart attack and Joe goes (more) cray-cray, so the Dems have to run find a new formidable candidate to face Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee... They decide Rosie O'Donnell is that person! Well, some of them do anyway... others are still split, some want to still nominate crazy Joe.. but Rosie is rising in the polls and looks invincible. As a person who doesn't want the Democrats to win, I am going to save all my comments about Rosie until she is the nominee. The last thing I would want the Democrats to do is come to their senses and nominate someone who can actually win the general. If I say anything at all, it will be to tear down the opposition of Rosie... so that she will win and then ultimately lose. 

There is no twisted logic here, it's basic common sense. Why would I want to change anyone's mind on Rosie before she won the nomination? If I was sure that she would lose the general election, then she is precisely who I hope they nominate. The ONLY reason I might have for not being the biggest Rosie fan in the world would be if I was afraid others might be scared away from her because of my support. I would have to be very careful not to become _too much_ of a Rosie cheerleader.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least but it doesn't change the psychology. If things were only posted on this board which were actually going to sway something, this would be a very quiet place. People are seldom swayed by what is posted here. Yet, that is the motive of every poster, to sway opinion.
> 
> Now, it seems to me, IF Trump were the "joke and clown" who is most easily defeated by Hillary, Bernie or Joe, he would be the last person you'd want to attack right now. Attack Jeb... Attack Carson and Cruz... Prop Trump up and sing his praises... or just shut up and don't say anything... Let the GOP nominate him! That's what you claim to WANT... but this is not what we're seeing.
> 
> If Trump were running 3rd or 4th, I doubt we'd see anyone posting anything about him. But he is leading in every poll by a good margin. He is now polling ahead of Clinton in Florida. At least three times he has said things which would normally tank the average candidate.. damn if he doesn't come out even more popular. I think he scares the shit out of Democrats AND GOP elite. He is a political establishment nightmare come true.
> 
> To me... it is HILARIOUS when they try to deny this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you expect people to go to a political message board and either not discuss one of the most popular political topics of the day, or lie about that topic, or they are afraid?  This based on the idea that only someone afraid of Trump would say bad things about him if people really consider him a joke or clown because they should support him to try and get him elected the Republican candidate, even though we've already established that what happens on this board is going to have next to no effect on the primaries?
> 
> That is some fairly twisted logic.  Besides, I have seen one or two posters who seem to have decided to pretend support for Trump here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back up... We haven't "established" anything. The motive of every poster is to sway opinion, whether that is ever accomplished here or not. Are you posting just to see yourself post? No, you want to change my mind. Whether you change my mind or not, it doesn't change your motive.
> 
> Okay... so now, let's swap places for a second... Let's imagine the following scenario: Hillary goes to jail, Bernie has a heart attack and Joe goes (more) cray-cray, so the Dems have to run find a new formidable candidate to face Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee... They decide Rosie O'Donnell is that person! Well, some of them do anyway... others are still split, some want to still nominate crazy Joe.. but Rosie is rising in the polls and looks invincible. As a person who doesn't want the Democrats to win, I am going to save all my comments about Rosie until she is the nominee. The last thing I would want the Democrats to do is come to their senses and nominate someone who can actually win the general. If I say anything at all, it will be to tear down the opposition of Rosie... so that she will win and then ultimately lose.
> 
> There is no twisted logic here, it's basic common sense. Why would I want to change anyone's mind on Rosie before she won the nomination? If I was sure that she would lose the general election, then she is precisely who I hope they nominate. The ONLY reason I might have for not being the biggest Rosie fan in the world would be if I was afraid others might be scared away from her because of my support. I would have to be very careful not to become _too much_ of a Rosie cheerleader.
Click to expand...


If you think your posting on this message board is going to have any real impact on any presidential primary, you have an incredibly over-inflated opinion of yourself.    If you think most people posting here think of a potential effect on primaries, I think you are very wrong about the motivations/beliefs of posters here.

This is only common sense if you actually think you might change enough opinions by posting on US Message Board to change the outcome of a presidential primary.  As I already said, I find it unlikely that there are many posters here who believe that is a possibility with their posts.

As far as establishing things, I asked if you thought a few posters on this board would influence the outcome of the Republican presidential primary.  You said no.  That certainly seemed to establish your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Boss

jasonnfree said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe in 2002 we should have taken the oil... of course I realize it didn't belong to us, that's why I believe we should have taken it. If it belonged to us, we wouldn't need to take it. Yes, I also realize it's a foreign country... we don't have many wars with domestic countries. Whether we had business there or not, we went there... we were there... we should have taken the oil. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush thought we shouldn't take the oil.... Trump and I think differently.
> 
> Love the way you tried to compare your moronic self with George Washington. Cute... was it meant to be funny? Because I got a good belly laugh when I read it. Who is talking about a war for profit? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was about profit he failed miserably because it cost us $2 trillion and counting. But aside from that, no amount of oil is worth the lives we lost or people's lives who were ruined forever. Capturing the oil is not about profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> USA's involvement in the middle east has been altruistic then?  Explain that one and I'll  stop considering you the apprentice, not the boss.
Click to expand...


I don't understand what you mean by altruistic involvement. We are involved in the middle east because there are US interests in the middle east and we have allies there who we've promised to support. Furthermore, it is the home-place of an enemy who formally declared war on us 20 years ago. We're not leaving, we're not going away, and we can't do so because of our interests there and our alliances with allies. It doesn't matter anyway, our presence there is not the problem... it's our existence. You are buying into a lie told to us by our enemy... that it's about our presence there. Wake the fuck up... it's NOT. 

Radical Islamic terrorism is not going to ever stop because we ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. That strategy fails miserably, as we are now seeing with the emergence of ISIS in the wake of our new "indifferent" policy. The movement will continue to grow, continue to foment hate and promote death to America. We will continue to see more and more violent acts and heinous atrocities on humanity perpetrated by this enemy. This isn't a video game we can turn off when we don't like how things are going. This isn't a reality TV program where we can change the channel if it becomes to much to watch. It's not even a failed liberal social program we can point to republicans and blame the failure on. These people have been at war with us for 20 years... seems like you would have gotten the message on 9/11/01... but apparently, you are really stupid.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least but it doesn't change the psychology. If things were only posted on this board which were actually going to sway something, this would be a very quiet place. People are seldom swayed by what is posted here. Yet, that is the motive of every poster, to sway opinion.
> 
> Now, it seems to me, IF Trump were the "joke and clown" who is most easily defeated by Hillary, Bernie or Joe, he would be the last person you'd want to attack right now. Attack Jeb... Attack Carson and Cruz... Prop Trump up and sing his praises... or just shut up and don't say anything... Let the GOP nominate him! That's what you claim to WANT... but this is not what we're seeing.
> 
> If Trump were running 3rd or 4th, I doubt we'd see anyone posting anything about him. But he is leading in every poll by a good margin. He is now polling ahead of Clinton in Florida. At least three times he has said things which would normally tank the average candidate.. damn if he doesn't come out even more popular. I think he scares the shit out of Democrats AND GOP elite. He is a political establishment nightmare come true.
> 
> To me... it is HILARIOUS when they try to deny this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you expect people to go to a political message board and either not discuss one of the most popular political topics of the day, or lie about that topic, or they are afraid?  This based on the idea that only someone afraid of Trump would say bad things about him if people really consider him a joke or clown because they should support him to try and get him elected the Republican candidate, even though we've already established that what happens on this board is going to have next to no effect on the primaries?
> 
> That is some fairly twisted logic.  Besides, I have seen one or two posters who seem to have decided to pretend support for Trump here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back up... We haven't "established" anything. The motive of every poster is to sway opinion, whether that is ever accomplished here or not. Are you posting just to see yourself post? No, you want to change my mind. Whether you change my mind or not, it doesn't change your motive.
> 
> Okay... so now, let's swap places for a second... Let's imagine the following scenario: Hillary goes to jail, Bernie has a heart attack and Joe goes (more) cray-cray, so the Dems have to run find a new formidable candidate to face Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee... They decide Rosie O'Donnell is that person! Well, some of them do anyway... others are still split, some want to still nominate crazy Joe.. but Rosie is rising in the polls and looks invincible. As a person who doesn't want the Democrats to win, I am going to save all my comments about Rosie until she is the nominee. The last thing I would want the Democrats to do is come to their senses and nominate someone who can actually win the general. If I say anything at all, it will be to tear down the opposition of Rosie... so that she will win and then ultimately lose.
> 
> There is no twisted logic here, it's basic common sense. Why would I want to change anyone's mind on Rosie before she won the nomination? If I was sure that she would lose the general election, then she is precisely who I hope they nominate. The ONLY reason I might have for not being the biggest Rosie fan in the world would be if I was afraid others might be scared away from her because of my support. I would have to be very careful not to become _too much_ of a Rosie cheerleader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think your posting on this message board is going to have any real impact on any presidential primary, you have an incredibly over-inflated opinion of yourself.    If you think most people posting here think of a potential effect on primaries, I think you are very wrong about the motivations/beliefs of posters here.
> 
> This is only common sense if you actually think you might change enough opinions by posting on US Message Board to change the outcome of a presidential primary.  As I already said, I find it unlikely that there are many posters here who believe that is a possibility with their posts.
> 
> As far as establishing things, I asked if you thought a few posters on this board would influence the outcome of the Republican presidential primary.  You said no.  That certainly seemed to establish your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...


I never said anyone posts thinking it's going to have real impact. I said it is the motive behind every post to change someones opinion. Each time you hit the reply button, you are about to try and change someone's mind.. it doesn't matter how successful you are or think you will be. That doesn't change your motive.


----------



## jasonnfree

Boss said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe in 2002 we should have taken the oil... of course I realize it didn't belong to us, that's why I believe we should have taken it. If it belonged to us, we wouldn't need to take it. Yes, I also realize it's a foreign country... we don't have many wars with domestic countries. Whether we had business there or not, we went there... we were there... we should have taken the oil. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush thought we shouldn't take the oil.... Trump and I think differently.
> 
> Love the way you tried to compare your moronic self with George Washington. Cute... was it meant to be funny? Because I got a good belly laugh when I read it. Who is talking about a war for profit? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was about profit he failed miserably because it cost us $2 trillion and counting. But aside from that, no amount of oil is worth the lives we lost or people's lives who were ruined forever. Capturing the oil is not about profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> USA's involvement in the middle east has been altruistic then?  Explain that one and I'll  stop considering you the apprentice, not the boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by altruistic involvement. We are involved in the middle east because there are US interests in the middle east and we have allies there who we've promised to support. Furthermore, it is the home-place of an enemy who formally declared war on us 20 years ago. We're not leaving, we're not going away, and we can't do so because of our interests there and our alliances with allies. It doesn't matter anyway, our presence there is not the problem... it's our existence. You are buying into a lie told to us by our enemy... that it's about our presence there. Wake the fuck up... it's NOT.
> 
> Radical Islamic terrorism is not going to ever stop because we ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. That strategy fails miserably, as we are now seeing with the emergence of ISIS in the wake of our new "indifferent" policy. The movement will continue to grow, continue to foment hate and promote death to America. We will continue to see more and more violent acts and heinous atrocities on humanity perpetrated by this enemy. This isn't a video game we can turn off when we don't like how things are going. This isn't a reality TV program where we can change the channel if it becomes to much to watch. It's not even a failed liberal social program we can point to republicans and blame the failure on. These people have been at war with us for 20 years... seems like you would have gotten the message on 9/11/01... but apparently, you are really stupid.
Click to expand...


"Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a few posters on this board are going to sway the Republican primaries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least but it doesn't change the psychology. If things were only posted on this board which were actually going to sway something, this would be a very quiet place. People are seldom swayed by what is posted here. Yet, that is the motive of every poster, to sway opinion.
> 
> Now, it seems to me, IF Trump were the "joke and clown" who is most easily defeated by Hillary, Bernie or Joe, he would be the last person you'd want to attack right now. Attack Jeb... Attack Carson and Cruz... Prop Trump up and sing his praises... or just shut up and don't say anything... Let the GOP nominate him! That's what you claim to WANT... but this is not what we're seeing.
> 
> If Trump were running 3rd or 4th, I doubt we'd see anyone posting anything about him. But he is leading in every poll by a good margin. He is now polling ahead of Clinton in Florida. At least three times he has said things which would normally tank the average candidate.. damn if he doesn't come out even more popular. I think he scares the shit out of Democrats AND GOP elite. He is a political establishment nightmare come true.
> 
> To me... it is HILARIOUS when they try to deny this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you expect people to go to a political message board and either not discuss one of the most popular political topics of the day, or lie about that topic, or they are afraid?  This based on the idea that only someone afraid of Trump would say bad things about him if people really consider him a joke or clown because they should support him to try and get him elected the Republican candidate, even though we've already established that what happens on this board is going to have next to no effect on the primaries?
> 
> That is some fairly twisted logic.  Besides, I have seen one or two posters who seem to have decided to pretend support for Trump here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back up... We haven't "established" anything. The motive of every poster is to sway opinion, whether that is ever accomplished here or not. Are you posting just to see yourself post? No, you want to change my mind. Whether you change my mind or not, it doesn't change your motive.
> 
> Okay... so now, let's swap places for a second... Let's imagine the following scenario: Hillary goes to jail, Bernie has a heart attack and Joe goes (more) cray-cray, so the Dems have to run find a new formidable candidate to face Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee... They decide Rosie O'Donnell is that person! Well, some of them do anyway... others are still split, some want to still nominate crazy Joe.. but Rosie is rising in the polls and looks invincible. As a person who doesn't want the Democrats to win, I am going to save all my comments about Rosie until she is the nominee. The last thing I would want the Democrats to do is come to their senses and nominate someone who can actually win the general. If I say anything at all, it will be to tear down the opposition of Rosie... so that she will win and then ultimately lose.
> 
> There is no twisted logic here, it's basic common sense. Why would I want to change anyone's mind on Rosie before she won the nomination? If I was sure that she would lose the general election, then she is precisely who I hope they nominate. The ONLY reason I might have for not being the biggest Rosie fan in the world would be if I was afraid others might be scared away from her because of my support. I would have to be very careful not to become _too much_ of a Rosie cheerleader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think your posting on this message board is going to have any real impact on any presidential primary, you have an incredibly over-inflated opinion of yourself.    If you think most people posting here think of a potential effect on primaries, I think you are very wrong about the motivations/beliefs of posters here.
> 
> This is only common sense if you actually think you might change enough opinions by posting on US Message Board to change the outcome of a presidential primary.  As I already said, I find it unlikely that there are many posters here who believe that is a possibility with their posts.
> 
> As far as establishing things, I asked if you thought a few posters on this board would influence the outcome of the Republican presidential primary.  You said no.  That certainly seemed to establish your opinion on the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said anyone posts thinking it's going to have real impact. I said it is the motive behind every post to change someones opinion. Each time you hit the reply button, you are about to try and change someone's mind.. it doesn't matter how successful you are or think you will be. That doesn't change your motive.
Click to expand...


*sigh*

OK, if a person doesn't expect their posts to have a real impact on presidential primaries, why would they avoid bashing Trump if they don't like him or think he's foolish?  Your rationale was that they wouldn't try to upset his candidacy if they really think he's so silly and unelectable, but if a person doesn't think their posts will have any real impact on whether or not he's elected, why worry about that?  It's a complete contradiction.  Either a poster believes what they say on this message board can have a real impact on the primaries or national election, and therefore if they want Trump to be the Republican candidate they should support him or at least not try to break him down, or a poster doesn't believe what they say on this message board can have a real impact, so why not bash the man if you dislike him or find him ridiculous?  You seem to want it to work both ways.


----------



## Montrovant

jasonnfree said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..."  You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you?    It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway.   If less  people thought like you and dick cheney,  and more people thought  like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe in 2002 we should have taken the oil... of course I realize it didn't belong to us, that's why I believe we should have taken it. If it belonged to us, we wouldn't need to take it. Yes, I also realize it's a foreign country... we don't have many wars with domestic countries. Whether we had business there or not, we went there... we were there... we should have taken the oil. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush thought we shouldn't take the oil.... Trump and I think differently.
> 
> Love the way you tried to compare your moronic self with George Washington. Cute... was it meant to be funny? Because I got a good belly laugh when I read it. Who is talking about a war for profit? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was about profit he failed miserably because it cost us $2 trillion and counting. But aside from that, no amount of oil is worth the lives we lost or people's lives who were ruined forever. Capturing the oil is not about profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> USA's involvement in the middle east has been altruistic then?  Explain that one and I'll  stop considering you the apprentice, not the boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by altruistic involvement. We are involved in the middle east because there are US interests in the middle east and we have allies there who we've promised to support. Furthermore, it is the home-place of an enemy who formally declared war on us 20 years ago. We're not leaving, we're not going away, and we can't do so because of our interests there and our alliances with allies. It doesn't matter anyway, our presence there is not the problem... it's our existence. You are buying into a lie told to us by our enemy... that it's about our presence there. Wake the fuck up... it's NOT.
> 
> Radical Islamic terrorism is not going to ever stop because we ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. That strategy fails miserably, as we are now seeing with the emergence of ISIS in the wake of our new "indifferent" policy. The movement will continue to grow, continue to foment hate and promote death to America. We will continue to see more and more violent acts and heinous atrocities on humanity perpetrated by this enemy. This isn't a video game we can turn off when we don't like how things are going. This isn't a reality TV program where we can change the channel if it becomes to much to watch. It's not even a failed liberal social program we can point to republicans and blame the failure on. These people have been at war with us for 20 years... seems like you would have gotten the message on 9/11/01... but apparently, you are really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
Click to expand...


As I recall, nearly everyone in congress voted to approve the invasion of Iraq.  Are you saying that nearly the entirety of congress is made up of neocons?  I ask this honestly because I don't know how you are defining the term.


----------



## idb

Esmeralda said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you. If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why?
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmm...it looks like the GOP and Fox are doing all the heavy lifting for the Left.
> 
> Mind you, Trump is spanking them soundly.
> They've come up against someone using their own tactics against them and they don't yet have an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you guys are really, really out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

You disagree that Trump is spanking Fox and the GOP?


----------



## Esmeralda

idb said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> But no one is threatened by a Trump candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> It is so painfully obvious that Trump scares you. If you truly felt the way you claim, then you people are the most stupid boneheaded political strategists in the history of politics. Why would you be trying to destroy him BEFORE he won the nomination? Makes absolutely NO sense. Shut up-- let him WIN first.. THEN come out with all the vitriol and hate! What you are doing is messing up a good thing for your candidate... you're taking out the sure bet... the guy your candidate can beat with no problem... the buffoon... the idiot... the clown... Why?
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you are a lying liberal piece of shit who cannot be honest. Trump scares the tee-total hell out of you because you're seeing the poll numbers continue to rise and you realize this man can garner votes outside the mainstream Republican and Tea Party base. You want to take him out in the primaries if at all possible. Your method seems to be, convincing his supporters they are stupid morons for supporting him.  I think it's a FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmm...it looks like the GOP and Fox are doing all the heavy lifting for the Left.
> 
> Mind you, Trump is spanking them soundly.
> They've come up against someone using their own tactics against them and they don't yet have an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you guys are really, really out of touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree that Trump is spanking Fox and the GOP?
Click to expand...

Spanking?LOL.

I think he's an irritant, that's all.  He's deflecting from serious, considered discussion and going for the lowest common denominator.  Unfortunately, people with the lowest common denominator brains are taking this guy seriously.

The sensible thing would be for the GOP candidates and Fox to just ignore him completely. He's an attention getter, and without the attention, he will give up.  He is not a serious presidential contender: I think even he knows that despite the fact so many conservative voters seem to think he is. He is making fools out of such people.

.


----------



## Boss

jasonnfree said:


> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.



Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit. 

In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence. 

You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.


----------



## Old Rocks

Russia is side drilling into the ANWR reserve? LOL. Boss, meet Billy Bob, Billy Bob, meet Boss. LOL


----------



## Faun

Boss said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit.
> 
> In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence.
> 
> You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
Click to expand...

There is sufficient drilling without destroying the ANWR. Offshore Drilling alone in the Gulf...


----------



## JimBowie1958

Boss said:


> Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou.



While I suspect that you may be right, I cant find anything on that. Got a link?



Boss said:


> You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.



You got that one right I do know.

Old Rocks is a senile old shit-for-brains.


----------



## Boss

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I suspect that you may be right, I cant find anything on that. Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got that one right I do know.
> 
> Old Rocks is a senile old shit-for-brains.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I have no link, haven't even searched it online to be honest. I read this recently in a book about the Russian Arctic Strategy on oil production. It is a technology known as "horizontal drilling" and it enables Russia to tap into the huge oil reserve underneath Alaska. But it's not just Russia... In the Gulf of Mexico, where we've all but banned deep-water drilling... The Chinese lease deep water areas from Cuba and Mexico and are sucking up the oil as fast as they can do so. China also has deep water rigs in the Pacific off Mexico, and if they have the 'horizontal drilling' technology, which they probably do... then they can steal the oil off California too.  We're literally being robbed blind of our natural resources and stupid liberals don't even seem to know or care what's going on.


----------



## Vigilante

WOW, only took me 27 minutes to get to post this! Those DOUBLE SECRET PROBATIONS are a bitch! ROTFLMFAO...Well being this will be the first and last post for today, I figure it should be a good one....Patriots, pass it around, piss ants, suck my d***!


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit.
> 
> In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence.
> 
> You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is sufficient drilling without destroying the ANWR. Offshore Drilling alone in the Gulf...
Click to expand...

Fuck ANWR.


----------



## jasonnfree

Boss said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit.
> 
> In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence.
> 
> You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
Click to expand...


We could have paid  more for the oil, like Europe did, and not have had to get involved with terrorist activities in the middle east, which is what USA has actually become.  A terrorist nation, since at least the overthrow of Iran's president in the 1950's and the installation of our puppet, the shah.   It would have been cheaper in the long run.  Instead, it's cost trillions in wars on hundreds of thousands of innocents killed, all for corporate profits.  This of course includes rebuilding countries we've terrorized and destroyed.  This is where the Isis's come from. 
If we have to pollute the oceans, gulfs, rivers, streams, and arctic ice packs in order to run on petroleum, then it's really time to reassess our energy needs if future generations are to survive.  In the meantime, turn off the right wing clowns that got you needlessly fired up to shill for the oil companies like the fool you are,  and do some reading on the CIA's overthrow of Iran's president, the bush family's involvement with Sadaam Hussein and the bin ladens.


----------



## Boss

jasonnfree said:


> In the meantime, turn off the right wing clowns that got you needlessly fired up to shill for the oil companies like the fool you are, and do some reading on the CIA's overthrow of Iran's president, the bush family's involvement with Sadaam Hussein and the bin ladens.



Yeah... I guess I could stuff my head full of banal anarchist rantings and nonsense like a big giant cannoli... I prefer actually using my brain cells. I'm not shilling for anything, just facing fucking reality. You seem to want to shut down the oil industry and whenever you do so.. I guess-- you'll stand there with your finger up your nose wondering why you never got that new x-box game release? 

Honest to God... Liberals disconnect their brains and wire up their hearts instead. You do your critical thinking with your raw emotions and nothing else. 

Again-- We are in the middle east because countries there have oil and we've worked out deals with them to pump their oil. They get paid, they are happy, we get oil, we are happy. We're not there stealing their oil while we keep them bound and gagged at gunpoint. We are not in ANY country over there where the government doesn't want us to be there.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I suspect that you may be right, I cant find anything on that. Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got that one right I do know.
> 
> Old Rocks is a senile old shit-for-brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have no link, haven't even searched it online to be honest. I read this recently in a book about the Russian Arctic Strategy on oil production. It is a technology known as "horizontal drilling" and it enables Russia to tap into the huge oil reserve underneath Alaska. But it's not just Russia... In the Gulf of Mexico, where we've all but banned deep-water drilling... The Chinese lease deep water areas from Cuba and Mexico and are sucking up the oil as fast as they can do so. China also has deep water rigs in the Pacific off Mexico, and if they have the 'horizontal drilling' technology, which they probably do... then they can steal the oil off California too.  We're literally being robbed blind of our natural resources and stupid liberals don't even seem to know or care what's going on.
Click to expand...


The thing is horizontal drilling is an expensive and fragile technology, as is deep sea drilling for oil which is under tremendous pressures. Also they would have to build rigs sitting outside our three mile territorial limit, normally, but with this idiot President we have, he might just be telling our officials to let them do it anyway.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Boss said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit.
> 
> In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence.
> 
> You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
Click to expand...


China is not in the gulf pumping out oil
PolitiFact: Stearns' claim about Chinese oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico is half true


----------



## Boss

JimBowie1958 said:


> The thing is horizontal drilling is an expensive and fragile technology, as is deep sea drilling for oil which is under tremendous pressures. Also they would have to build rigs sitting outside our three mile territorial limit, normally, but with this idiot President we have, he might just be telling our officials to let them do it anyway.



Well the oil reserve beneath Alaska doesn't coincide with our territorial borders above ground. It extends out into the Bering Sea and up into the Arctic Ocean. The expense is inconsequential compared to the reserves they are tapping. And yes, it is fragile technology.


----------



## Boss

bear513 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit.
> 
> In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence.
> 
> You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is not in the gulf pumping out oil
> PolitiFact: Stearns' claim about Chinese oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico is half true
Click to expand...


Hilarious! Your article basically says "yeah, they ARE, but it's not THAT much!" 

YES... China IS in the gulf pumping out oil.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Boss said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our interests" are  the oil companies operating there for profit.  They sure aren't worried about you and you shouldn't worry about them either They won't give you a discount at the gas pump for shilling for them I'm here to tell you.   You could be a real sucker and join the  millitary to fight their battles, almost die for the effort, and you still wouldn't get a bonus from exxon or a discount at the gas pump. These oil companies use the U.S. military to protect their interest there (which are not your interests as you've been led to believe).  How would you like it if Red China came to this country of ours to mine for minerals or whatever, and interfered in our political affairs,  including establishing some military bases here and stir up wars between us and Canada.  You might be a little irritated to,  like the  Arabs are. You neocons didn't stay out of other countries' affairs like George Washington and I advised, so the chickens are now coming home to roost.  Only an apprentice you are, not even a journeyman, much less a boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron... If there weren't any oil companies operating for profit, how the fuck would you get around? It wouldn't be in a car using gas. How would food and supplies arrive at your favorite store? Again... not with trucks using fuel. How would plastic be made? How would homes be heated? How would airplanes fly? All of this REQUIRES oil companies operating for profit.
> 
> In addition... Every ounce of oil we get from the middle east is paid for. The oil companies are there because they signed a contract with the governments there to come in and do their thing. We have no oil companies present in any country that doesn't want us there. Oil is the only product they have to sell. If it weren't for American industrialization and our need for oil, you would be here whining your silly liberal head off about the starving Arabs who needed our benevolence.
> 
> You refuse to allow us to drill for our own oil here. Even though China is in the Gulf of Mexico pumping it out as fast as they can. Russia is side-drilling into the ANWR reserves... we can't drill there because you are concerned about the caribou. And NOW you don't want them to drill in the middle east because you believe terrorists who have lied to you and said they are mad because we are there.  You're a simple-minded idiot... that's the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is not in the gulf pumping out oil
> PolitiFact: Stearns' claim about Chinese oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico is half true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious! Your article basically says "yeah, they ARE, but it's not THAT much!"
> 
> YES... China IS in the gulf pumping out oil.
Click to expand...

 land base, nothing in the gulf.


----------



## Donmichael

tinydancer said:


> OMG this has to be the wildest primary season. RINO'S are running for Extra Strength Immodium AD as I post this thread.
> 
> Kick it up notches unknown! Go Donny! Go Donny!
> 
> 
> 
> First big post-debate poll shows Donald Trump GAINED 7 points and sits at 32 Daily Mail Online
> 
> *First major post-debate poll shows Trump GAINED 7 points from the previous week and has backing of 32 per cent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents*
> 
> *Stunning result after Trump attracted criticism over debate performance on Thursday*
> *Trump has 32 per cent nationally among registered Republicans and independents who say they lean to the right*
> *No one is anywhere near The Donald, with Jeb Bush in second place at just 11 per cent*
> *Poll supervised by former Washington Post journalist and shows no one else in double digits*



Hats off to a man of action not empty words  Donald Trump!!
People all over America Join Hands And Ride The Trump Train!


----------



## Donmichael

TheOldSchool said:


> God damn right!  Trump is the way!  Watch out Bush and Cruz!  Donald has you in his sights!


I 2nd that !!
Hats off to a man of action not empty words  Donald Trump!!
People all over America Join Hands And Ride The Trump Train!


----------



## JimBowie1958

Laura Ingram schooled Chucky Krauthammer on the 14th Amendment here, lol.


----------



## Donmichael

Trump Shaking up the Talking Heads!!
I love it!!


----------

