GaryDog
Gold Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 4,369
- 530
One good thing about a Sander's revolution, all you would have to do is tell those people that a revolution is a job, an they woul all go home. LOL
Derp, derp, derp!
You're a total fucking idiot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One good thing about a Sander's revolution, all you would have to do is tell those people that a revolution is a job, an they woul all go home. LOL
There is no possibility that the electorate could coordinate such an effort. How could they possibly all come to the same conclusion as to which "not Trump" candidate to coalesce behind? No, only the candidates themselves could have managed such a thing. In the old days you could have brokered something behind the scenes. Now, after Ronnie in 1976 and Kennedy in '80? Screw party loyalty. Everyone is in it for themselves. Neither Schultz nor Preibus could go to their people and say, drop out, do it for the party!You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.
Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.
Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.
The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.
How could they possibly all come to the same conclusion as to which "not Trump" candidate to coalesce behind? No, only the candidates themselves could have managed such a thing.
How can you convince someone to drop out for the good of the party when they are all thoroughly convinced that the exact opposite is true? That they are the only hope for salvation that the party has?
What do you think Hillary and Bernie are relying on when they push their lies?
Thats a lot of typing to say absolutely nothing all politicans lie this didn't start with Trump and it won't end with him. Peoples tolerance for politicians lies depends on much they support them If your a Trump, Sanders, or Clinton backer their lies don't matter to you if your not they do.What do you think Hillary and Bernie are relying on when they push their lies?
Look at the false statements made by the three and you tell me which of them fall into the category of lies, remarks that self aggrandizing misrepresent the truth and which can be seen as honest mistakes. I realize everyone will miscite something by mistake at various times.
People who speak on the record as often as do politicians can be given a bit of leeway on that count, even Trump. However look at the nature of Trump's false claims and then look at those made by Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton. It's there that one will see the difference. In looking that the remarks, ask yourself, "Would it or should it matter if the remark is factually true? Would I change (even marginally) my views were I first think the remark is true and later find out it is not? Might the rationale of any of one's thoughts about the "state of things" in any way depend on the verity of the remarks?"
I don't gripe about someone -- anyone's merely being mistaken, especially if they are and they retract/recant -- but I have a problem, a big one, with folks, especially politicians (newly minted or long term), making false statements, they use to bolster misconceptions held by people who aren't "in the know" on the details of a given issue and then using those falsehoods to support judgements they publicly articulate. (I also have a problem with people who aren't "in the know" having "loud" and strong opinions about an issue.)
Looking at the quantity (and thus frequency) of them -- honest mistakes or deliberate prevarications -- and there too one will find a huge difference. Given that to the extent anyone deliberately lies, of course, they necessarily rely on their audience's ignorance. In such situations wherein one is confronted with the unenviable task of choosing the "best of the worst," it's the nature and quantity of lies that distinguishes the liars; the fewer lies, the better.
If your [sic] a Trump, Sanders, or Clinton backer their lies don't matter to you if your not they do.
Truly, I don't think I can ever recall a time when either party had as its potential leader what amounts to, as the GOP has now, rule by "three blind mice." I'm an Independent, but I have to think that any rationally thinking/driven Republican has to be thoroughly embarrassed by the remaining choices s/he has available this election cycle: a consummate prevaricator and two buffoons. Jesus H. Christ!