If you didn't support Trump in 2016 do you regret it and will you support him in 2020

[DOTR]

Option 6: "I am an Independent who would rather vote for a fence-post than to vote for your Robber Baron."

Why not, you sit on one like a post turtle. Don't know how you got there, why or how to get down,

Immaterial to the question of the fitness of the incumbent... juvenile, amateurish pablum served-up as a defense against valid criticism.

Unfortunately for you Trumpettes, ya'll have gone the bumper-sticker-slogan defensive route one time too many...

All bull$hit and insults, and very little substance...

Like your demigod...

Your average American is smart enough to see through such tissue-thin defenses, as you will learn in November...

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

 

[White 6]

Well said, but in 72 they took a reasoned approach, did not label the opposition as the enemy of the Republican party, we're the party that started the EPA not the one appointing someone from the coal or gas industry and weakening clean water standards, the Republicans worked across the aisle to get thing done, clean up through the Clinton years. Republicans have not been against pointless wars for 2 decades. Christianity is not the purview of the Republican party. If someone disagreed with Republic point of view, rhetoric or talking point the generally were not labeled fascist, nazi, anti-american, etc. We had, as we do now, the largest economy on earth, following trade policy instituted by republican and democrat parties alike, and our GDP consistently expanded with those trade policies. Trump has been a leader at pitting people against each other, rich/poor, democrat/republican and yes, black/white. Republicans supported NATO and did not Trust Russia, much less take cues from it's leader. Republicans also used to be better at reigning in their own when they went to excess, not act as a rubber stamp. Now elected republicans do not speak to Democrats, or work together to solve problems. Republicans did not come into office and tear down what was put together by republican and democratic parties past, just to break something and put their stamp on it's replacement or replace it with nothing. The also did not raid the military budget after it was agreed by both houses and signed by the President to pay for their pet project, that they promised would be paid for by a foreign government. One party strong man unrestrained rule is a bad idea.

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

Not who was paying for it. Where it came from. KGB. To Hillary.

It appears Hillary lost (thank goodness, too bad they both couldn't have lost), but don't feel butt hurt. Trump go lots of help from Russia in the form of stolen emails and thirteen state twitter/facebook/social media campaign, as well as a lot of funding from NRA that was sponsored by Russia.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

Not who was paying for it. Where it came from. KGB. To Hillary.

It appears Hillary lost (thank goodness, too bad they both couldn't have lost), but don't feel butt hurt. Trump go lots of help from Russia in the form of stolen emails and thirteen state twitter/facebook/social media campaign, as well as a lot of funding from NRA that was sponsored by Russia.

 

[ChrisL]

Option 6: "I am an Independent who would rather vote for a fence-post than to vote for your Robber Baron."

Why not, you sit on one like a post turtle. Don't know how you got there, why or how to get down,

Immaterial to the question of the fitness of the incumbent... juvenile, amateurish pablum served-up as a defense against valid criticism.

Unfortunately for you Trumpettes, ya'll have gone the bumper-sticker-slogan defensive route one time too many...

All bull$hit and insults, and very little substance...

Like your demigod...

Your average American is smart enough to see through such tissue-thin defenses, as you will learn in November...

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

To his own benefit. He could probably garner more voters if he wouldn't be so arrogant. Some of us are able to overlook that as a human flaw, but others cannot . . . obviously.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I meant *or. Stupid typo. I agree. Trump is the effect. Many whom I know did it as a FU to the PC culture Leftists I doubt they are alone who thought that way

Do you have a theory of what happened to the Republican party. I started voting mostly republican starting with Richard Nixon and voting Lamar Alexander for Governor back in 72. I do not recognize that party anymore. It is a party of today, appearing almost totally without honor, moving as a rubber stamp. Do they really support his leadership or is it just agenda goals and power?

I support the agenda he ran on, and am glad he is actually doing what he said he would. He may be crass, but I think it is good leadership to implement what you ran on while under constant attack. What did the republicans believe in 72 that they no longer do? I'm for less regulation, less taxes, no pointless wars, not increasing the welfare state, and sensible immigration. I'm also pro 2nd amendment, and support Christianity. I'm also big on free speech and not being a trade door mat for every country on earth. I'll add pro law enforcement and rule of law and treating everyone equally instead of pitting groups of people against each other for pointless reasons. That is just off the top of my head.

Well said, but in 72 they took a reasoned approach, did not label the opposition as the enemy of the Republican party, we're the party that started the EPA not the one appointing someone from the coal or gas industry and weakening clean water standards, the Republicans worked across the aisle to get thing done, clean up through the Clinton years. Republicans have not been against pointless wars for 2 decades. Christianity is not the purview of the Republican party. If someone disagreed with Republic point of view, rhetoric or talking point the generally were not labeled fascist, nazi, anti-american, etc. We had, as we do now, the largest economy on earth, following trade policy instituted by republican and democrat parties alike, and our GDP consistently expanded with those trade policies. Trump has been a leader at pitting people against each other, rich/poor, democrat/republican and yes, black/white. Republicans supported NATO and did not Trust Russia, much less take cues from it's leader. Republicans also used to be better at reigning in their own when they went to excess, not act as a rubber stamp. Now elected republicans do not speak to Democrats, or work together to solve problems. Republicans did not come into office and tear down what was put together by republican and democratic parties past, just to break something and put their stamp on it's replacement or replace it with nothing. The also did not raid the military budget after it was agreed by both houses and signed by the President to pay for their pet project, that they promised would be paid for by a foreign government. One party strong man unrestrained rule is a bad idea.

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see all the hate the media is pushing. It seems Trump is working his butt of for everybody. I'm not sure you could argue that his policies are racist in any way or bad for women. I find it odd that you are concentrating on values. Yes, he was a crappy husband many times over, and you wouldn't want him preaching in a church, but again, he is offering common sense policy that helps everyone. It is also a bit of a surprise that you are buying into the Ukrainian story. I think modern republicans don't care if he was a crappy husband, and are thankful that someone is finally doing something to help them. I'm not sacrificing any core values, and I'm thankful for a president who is not an incompetent Washington lifer.

 

[DOTR]

Because, of course, they want rule of law to reign, a group of citizens began digging up the grave of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis this week over his helping found the Ku Klux Klan.

They only got a few shovelfuls before giving up. But they vowed to return with a backhoe to dig the rest of the man’s grave up later.

Legally speaking, this would be called “grave robbing” and “vandalism,” and might even violate a few of God’s laws, as well. But none of that matters to vigilantes in pursuit against racism and racist racists who practice it.

Real guts, these fine people have, to take a stand against something so popular as racism. Yeah, it’s right up there with gonorrhea, syphilis, flesh-eating amoebas and child rape. Good old red-white-and-blue racism.

But there is a method to this nihilistic madness. Without “racist America,” you would not have the political party known as Democrats. Its entire existence, every dime it raises, every position it takes is based on this century-old cliche that somehow America — the country that invented freedom and self-governance — is still totally racist.

Their leader Nancy Pelosi — a full decade after she became Speaker of the House — is shocked — SHOCKED, I SAY!!! — to find that there are Confederate statues all throughout the Capitol building where she has worked for more than a quarter-century.

Suddenly she finds them “reprehensible” symbols of racism.

Democrats Decry the KKK While Forgetting Legacy of One of Their Own - Rasmussen Reports®

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

After, apparently, 30 years of herself celebrating “violent bigotry.”


In this land of dishonest race hucksters, it is always important to remember that small lies never win. They always go for the BIG LIE.

Remind me, again, who was behind all the “violent bigotry” of the Civil War? Oh, yeah, it was Democrats. And who was behind all the vestiges of it over the last century? Democrats.

Mrs. Pelosi knows this, of course, because she worked shoulder-to-shoulder for 23 years beside a retired member of the Ku Klux Klan. That would, of course, be the “great senator” from the “great state” of West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd, a lifelong Democrat.

As the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK, Mr. Byrd recruited more than 100 people to join his chapter and warned in a letter against America becoming “degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country,” Mrs. Pelosi said.


I find this most repulsive of all. And I see southerners voting democrat. Their ancestors would be ashamed of them. Quislings who shit on their memory. Serfs demanding to be disarmed.

 

[ChrisL]

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

Not who was paying for it. Where it came from. KGB. To Hillary.

It appears Hillary lost (thank goodness, too bad they both couldn't have lost), but don't feel butt hurt. Trump go lots of help from Russia in the form of stolen emails and thirteen state twitter/facebook/social media campaign, as well as a lot of funding from NRA that was sponsored by Russia.

Well, this conversation has been enlightening. Now I know that you are foolish.

 

[DOTR]

Option 6: "I am an Independent who would rather vote for a fence-post than to vote for your Robber Baron."

Why not, you sit on one like a post turtle. Don't know how you got there, why or how to get down,

Immaterial to the question of the fitness of the incumbent... juvenile, amateurish pablum served-up as a defense against valid criticism.

Unfortunately for you Trumpettes, ya'll have gone the bumper-sticker-slogan defensive route one time too many...

All bull$hit and insults, and very little substance...

Like your demigod...

Your average American is smart enough to see through such tissue-thin defenses, as you will learn in November...

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

To his own benefit. He could probably garner more voters if he wouldn't be so arrogant. Some of us are able to overlook that as a human flaw, but others cannot . . . obviously.

So when the Marxists complain about his tweets and tell him to tone it down....you think they are doing it for his benefit?

 

[ChrisL]

Why not, you sit on one like a post turtle. Don't know how you got there, why or how to get down,

Immaterial to the question of the fitness of the incumbent... juvenile, amateurish pablum served-up as a defense against valid criticism.

Unfortunately for you Trumpettes, ya'll have gone the bumper-sticker-slogan defensive route one time too many...

All bull$hit and insults, and very little substance...

Like your demigod...

Your average American is smart enough to see through such tissue-thin defenses, as you will learn in November...

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

To his own benefit. He could probably garner more voters if he wouldn't be so arrogant. Some of us are able to overlook that as a human flaw, but others cannot . . . obviously.

So when the Marxists complain about his tweets and tell him to tone it down....you think they are doing it for his benefit?

Of course not, but there are others who are not Marxists who also are not fond of his sometimes over the top exaggerations/rhetoric and arrogance. Honestly though, I doubt if he is really any more arrogant than other presidents, he just isn't as good at hiding it.

 

[DOTR]

I support the agenda he ran on, and am glad he is actually doing what he said he would. He may be crass, but I think it is good leadership to implement what you ran on while under constant attack. What did the republicans believe in 72 that they no longer do? I'm for less regulation, less taxes, no pointless wars, not increasing the welfare state, and sensible immigration. I'm also pro 2nd amendment, and support Christianity. I'm also big on free speech and not being a trade door mat for every country on earth. I'll add pro law enforcement and rule of law and treating everyone equally instead of pitting groups of people against each other for pointless reasons. That is just off the top of my head.

Well said, but in 72 they took a reasoned approach, did not label the opposition as the enemy of the Republican party, we're the party that started the EPA not the one appointing someone from the coal or gas industry and weakening clean water standards, the Republicans worked across the aisle to get thing done, clean up through the Clinton years. Republicans have not been against pointless wars for 2 decades. Christianity is not the purview of the Republican party. If someone disagreed with Republic point of view, rhetoric or talking point the generally were not labeled fascist, nazi, anti-american, etc. We had, as we do now, the largest economy on earth, following trade policy instituted by republican and democrat parties alike, and our GDP consistently expanded with those trade policies. Trump has been a leader at pitting people against each other, rich/poor, democrat/republican and yes, black/white. Republicans supported NATO and did not Trust Russia, much less take cues from it's leader. Republicans also used to be better at reigning in their own when they went to excess, not act as a rubber stamp. Now elected republicans do not speak to Democrats, or work together to solve problems. Republicans did not come into office and tear down what was put together by republican and democratic parties past, just to break something and put their stamp on it's replacement or replace it with nothing. The also did not raid the military budget after it was agreed by both houses and signed by the President to pay for their pet project, that they promised would be paid for by a foreign government. One party strong man unrestrained rule is a bad idea.

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Interesting point. I do remember Obama saying he would be "more flexible" after he was in office.

Meaning after he fooled the American people and didn’t have to worry about elections.

 

[DOTR]

Immaterial to the question of the fitness of the incumbent... juvenile, amateurish pablum served-up as a defense against valid criticism.

Unfortunately for you Trumpettes, ya'll have gone the bumper-sticker-slogan defensive route one time too many...

All bull$hit and insults, and very little substance...

Like your demigod...

Your average American is smart enough to see through such tissue-thin defenses, as you will learn in November...

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

To his own benefit. He could probably garner more voters if he wouldn't be so arrogant. Some of us are able to overlook that as a human flaw, but others cannot . . . obviously.

So when the Marxists complain about his tweets and tell him to tone it down....you think they are doing it for his benefit?

Of course not, but there are others who are not Marxists who also are not fond of his sometimes over the top exaggerations/rhetoric and arrogance. Honestly though, I doubt if he is really any more arrogant than other presidents, he just isn't as good at hiding it.

I’m not speaking of them. The unified opinion of the left is that he should stop tweeting and be more polite. I’m sure they are just waiting to vote for him when he does.

Nobody voted for the woman who called them “deplorable” simply because Trump is bombastic. The days of them reigning us in are over.

 

[White 6]

I don't think the Republican leaders ever considered Democrats as the enemy. It's quite the other way around. Political bloggers such as myself? Without a doubt I see them as the enemy.

Why? Because they are basically power hungry Socialists. The Communists stated decades ago they would take over the United States of America, but they will do so without one shot being fired. They will takeover from within, and that's what we see with the Democrat party today.

Bottom line is I see a party that wants to dismantle this country, and reassemble it to mirror other Socialist shitholes. I don't want to see that happen to my country. People who want that kind of system already have places they can go to live it for a while. They can go to Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea. And when they find it's not what it was cracked up to be, they can always come home to the good ole United States of America, if their new country lets them.

But once you change this place and find out it's not what you thought it would be, there is no other USA to move back to. It will be gone forever. There will be no place left to go, because the United States in it's current form is unique and unduplicated. There is no other country like it in the world. We are the only one. So let's not surrender it.

Understand how you think and feel. Many of the the Democrats view your party the same way, but not viewing themselves from your mindset, see the opposite threat to the union and the two party system. Both mindsets are wrong, only reacting to the fringes, not the central part of the party. It is the kids fighting in the back seat on a long trip. That is just my opinion.

Nobody in the republican party is talking about socialism, so why would they fear the party? The opposite threat? What would that be? Freedom?

Please answer my question above. What do the leftists fear about the republican party, especially since you stated it was the "opposite threat."

Absolute rule by hard right wing support of an unchecked single strongman leader. You know it was not what the framers had in mind, but looks like the direction the further right wants to go.

You can't be serious. Lol. NOBODY wants that. WE want democrats to come to their senses and to follow what the framers had in mind and not try to move us down the path of socialism, and not try to impeach presidents simply because they don't like him, and because they don't like him, they try to make people like you FEAR him. Ridiculous. Being a businessman, he wants America to be prosperous.

I could be wrong. You did not ask about me. You asked "What do the leftists fear about the republican party," so I took a guess at it. Never been one of those "dreaded leftists". I'm a conservative American patriot who served my country honorably and have a stable productive person in private and in public all my life. My brother wasn't around to answer and is probably drunk anyway. I think him a committed Deomcrat strongly leaning left, but he's the only brother I have left, so I love him and try to overlook his ill considered viewpoints.

 

[ChrisL]

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

To his own benefit. He could probably garner more voters if he wouldn't be so arrogant. Some of us are able to overlook that as a human flaw, but others cannot . . . obviously.

So when the Marxists complain about his tweets and tell him to tone it down....you think they are doing it for his benefit?

Of course not, but there are others who are not Marxists who also are not fond of his sometimes over the top exaggerations/rhetoric and arrogance. Honestly though, I doubt if he is really any more arrogant than other presidents, he just isn't as good at hiding it.

I’m not speaking of them. The unified opinion of the left is that he should stop tweeting and be more polite. I’m sure they are just waiting to vote for him when he does.

Nobody voted for the woman who called them deplorable simply because Trump is bombastic. The days of them reigning us in are over.

Hey, when he is right, he is right. But he sometimes jumps the gun. I just wish he wouldn't do that. It just gives them more ammo.

 

[ChrisL]

Understand how you think and feel. Many of the the Democrats view your party the same way, but not viewing themselves from your mindset, see the opposite threat to the union and the two party system. Both mindsets are wrong, only reacting to the fringes, not the central part of the party. It is the kids fighting in the back seat on a long trip. That is just my opinion.

Nobody in the republican party is talking about socialism, so why would they fear the party? The opposite threat? What would that be? Freedom?

Please answer my question above. What do the leftists fear about the republican party, especially since you stated it was the "opposite threat."

Absolute rule by hard right wing support of an unchecked single strongman leader. You know it was not what the framers had in mind, but looks like the direction the further right wants to go.

You can't be serious. Lol. NOBODY wants that. WE want democrats to come to their senses and to follow what the framers had in mind and not try to move us down the path of socialism, and not try to impeach presidents simply because they don't like him, and because they don't like him, they try to make people like you FEAR him. Ridiculous. Being a businessman, he wants America to be prosperous.

I could be wrong. You did not ask about me. You asked "What do the leftists fear about the republican party," so I took a guess at it. Never been one of those "dreaded leftists". I'm a conservative American patriot who served my country honorably and have a stable productive person in private and in public all my life. My brother wasn't around to answer and is probably drunk anyway. I think him a committed Deomcrat strongly leaning left, but he's the only brother I have left, so I love him and try to overlook his ill considered viewpoints.

Yet you believe the dems manufactured Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can understand that. I do agree that he needs to tone down the rhetoric, but remember that he is attacked at every opportunity and is only a human being who has flaws.

I don't feel that I have to personally like a person in order to recognize that they can do a good job.

Why would he tone down the rhetoric? To whose benefit.

To his own benefit. He could probably garner more voters if he wouldn't be so arrogant. Some of us are able to overlook that as a human flaw, but others cannot . . . obviously.

So when the Marxists complain about his tweets and tell him to tone it down....you think they are doing it for his benefit?

Of course not, but there are others who are not Marxists who also are not fond of his sometimes over the top exaggerations/rhetoric and arrogance. Honestly though, I doubt if he is really any more arrogant than other presidents, he just isn't as good at hiding it.

I’m not speaking of them. The unified opinion of the left is that he should stop tweeting and be more polite. I’m sure they are just waiting to vote for him when he does.

Nobody voted for the woman who called them “deplorable” simply because Trump is bombastic. The days of them reigning us in are over.

The reason they want him to stop Tweeting is to silence him. With 93% negative reporting on Trump since he took office, in spite of his accomplishments, only leaves him one major news source to get his message out. So he communicates with the public through Tweets.

 

[DOTR]

I partially agree with your post, but I don't think Sara was a flake. That is just how the leftist media portrayed her.

She made it easy. It was not her year to make it to the stage. Possibly a filly brought along to fast, by poor judgement of the handlers.

She made what easy? For leftists to portray her in a negative light? In the leftist mind, I suppose that is true.

Does not even have to be a leftist mind.

To be so cruel to her and her children? Yes, yes it does.

Luckily she will not matter. Analysis or evaluation of her and those against her no longer matter. Much like Hillary, only not as long around, she was here to strut and fret her hour upon the stage, and then be heard no more, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Mcbeth aside...palin didn’t try to destroy the system she couldn’t game.

 

[Bush92]

Never in a million gazillion years would I vote for this man of lawlessness....

That wasn't a choice, but should have been!!!!

Hate the United States much?

 

[DOTR]

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

Not who was paying for it. Where it came from. KGB. To Hillary.

It appears Hillary lost (thank goodness, too bad they both couldn't have lost), but don't feel butt hurt. Trump go lots of help from Russia in the form of stolen emails and thirteen state twitter/facebook/social media campaign, as well as a lot of funding from NRA that was sponsored by Russia.

You are as far gone as your defeated candidate.

 

[DOTR]

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

Not who was paying for it. Where it came from. KGB. To Hillary.

It appears Hillary lost (thank goodness, too bad they both couldn't have lost), but don't feel butt hurt. Trump go lots of help from Russia in the form of stolen emails and thirteen state twitter/facebook/social media campaign, as well as a lot of funding from NRA that was sponsored by Russia.

Well, this conversation has been enlightening. Now I know that you are foolish.

LOL. what tipped you off?

 

[Care4all]

Never in a million gazillion years would I vote for this man of lawlessness....

That wasn't a choice, but should have been!!!!

Hate the United States much?

Love the United States, disheartened with the Man of Lawlessness and what he has done to our Nation!