Why Are Liberals So Upset About Trump Not Participating In Debate

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[g5000]

How does one mistake laughing for "upset"?

How would anyone mistake you for a Republican or a conservative?

It's no mistake and you're neither.

that's right, it's no mistake when every conservative Republican in this forum says g5000 is no conservative and no Republican.

It's no mistake you are one of the hypocritical psychopaths who have destroyed the conservative brand.

You don't get to decide who is a conservative, asswipe.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How does one mistake laughing for "upset"?

How would anyone mistake you for a Republican or a conservative?

It's no mistake and you're neither.

that's right, it's no mistake when every conservative Republican in this forum says g5000 is no conservative and no Republican.

It's no mistake you are one of the hypocritical psychopaths who have destroyed the conservative brand.

You don't get to decide who is a conservative, asswipe.

Neither do you pal.

 

[g5000]

How does one mistake laughing for "upset"?

How would anyone mistake you for a Republican or a conservative?

It's no mistake and you're neither.

that's right, it's no mistake when every conservative Republican in this forum says g5000 is no conservative and no Republican.

It's no mistake you are one of the hypocritical psychopaths who have destroyed the conservative brand.

You don't get to decide who is a conservative, asswipe.

Neither do you pal.

We've had shitheads calling Reagan a RINO on this forum in recent days, so I am quite comfortable with you creeps lumping me in with him. Because that is what I am, a Reagan conservative. I'm in much better company than you psychos.

 

[hangover]

How does one mistake laughing for "upset"?

How would anyone mistake you for a Republican or a conservative?

It's no mistake and you're neither.

that's right, it's no mistake when every conservative Republican in this forum says g5000 is no conservative and no Republican.

It's no mistake you are one of the hypocritical psychopaths who have destroyed the conservative brand.

You don't get to decide who is a conservative, asswipe.

Thanks for giving me a title for a thread. I really want to have cons give their definition of conservative.

 

[Camp]

Who and where are these liberals upset about Trump not participating in the debate? They all seem to be laughing and happy to hear the news.

 

[hangover]

Who and where are these liberals upset about Trump not participating in the debate? They all seem to be laughing and happy to hear the news.

I can't wait to see the debate....just to watch all the other clowns dump on Trump without him there to take away the attention. This is going to be fun!

 

[bodecea]

Watched Megan Kelly last nite (it was on at restaurant we go to with closed captions) She had Rubio on and Rand Paul...."so, what do you think of Trump not going to the debate" "so, what do you think about Trump not going to the debate" "so, what do you think about Trump not going to the debate"........

I remember Rand Paul calling him afraid. Fun stuff right there.

 

[Agit8r]

One need not be upset, to dish out some well deserved mockery.

 

[Pogo]

Who and where are these liberals upset about Trump not participating in the debate? They all seem to be laughing and happy to hear the news.

Personally I think of the whole thing as a gold mine.

I'll admit, I've never been interested in soap opera before. Until now.

 

[Camp]

We need to move on with this discussion and get beyond and away from the disturbing trump photo.

 

[BlindBoo]

The op is even funnier than the fact that 'Donald the Lair' is going to boycott Faux News.

 

[daws101]

Ronald Reagan skipped the debate right before the Iowa caucus and kicked the ass of the Russkies in the Cold War so who is the pussy now?

Reagan did not kick any ass of anybody the Soviet Union collapsed not because of Reagan but in spite of him.
He just took credit for it and dumbfucks like yourself swallowed it.

Actually Reagan wasn't even in office any more. By that point he didn't even know where he was.

Are you saying what Jimmy Carter did over 10 years before the USSR disbanded caused it?

yes and all the other presidents before him
By Jack Sears, Port Orchard

Columnist Ed Palm's reassessment of President Ronald Reagan in the Jan. 10 Kitsap Sun ("Reagan's acting lesson for Obama") brought to mind an aspect of Reagan's legacy that manages to color today's presidential race: the contention on the part of some candidates that the best foreign policy requires a muscular, even threatening, posture that will intimidate our enemies to the point of their giving up.

The often cited proof of this theory is that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War through a display of tough rhetoric and an aggressive military buildup that a bankrupt economy in the Soviet Union that couldn't compete against. Further, it was widely believed, Reagan helped bring the Berlin Wall tumbling down with the exhortation: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I'm afraid that none of this is supported by the facts. Much of the American public, influenced by American-oriented media coverage and the perhaps wishful thinking of President Reagan's many admirers, came to believe that he had indeed bullied the Soviets into submission, ending the Cold War and leading to the dissolution of the USSR itself.

Few people, at the time or since, thought to test that theory against the reality of what actually was happening in the Soviet Union, or what its leaders thought about Reagan. In 1994, however, two distinguished political scientists did in fact interview then Soviet President Gorbachev and other Soviet officials for an article titled "Reagan and the Russians," which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1994.

Their conclusion: "The Carter-Reagan military buildup did not defeat the Soviet Union. On the contrary, it prolonged the Cold War."

How could that be? According to the magazine, Mr. Gorbachev had become convinced over time that the U.S. would not attack the USSR unless provoked, and so was not intimidated by Reagan's aggressive military stance which, according to Gorbachev, only made it more difficult for him to convince Soviet generals and officials of his view of a nonthreatening United States. Moreover, Soviet military spending, according to CIA figures, did not escalate but remained constant during the Reagan years. Any competition with expensive U.S. military programs such as SDI was imaginary, and clearly did not bankrupt the Soviet economy (even though the long-continuing history of high military expenditures helped drag it down).

As for the Berlin Wall, its demise was initiated by an onslaught of East Germans responding to a mistaken newscast claiming that the East German border was suddenly open to everyone. This occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, in 1989, not during the Reagan presidency, and the actual demolition of the wall didn't begin for another year. There is little evidence, according to Time magazine, that Reagan's speech had any impact at all on the fate of the wall, much less on the Soviet leaders he addressed in his speech at Brandenburg Gate.

Blustery displays may play well politically, but they seldom make for good foreign policy. In the worst case, the harsh rhetoric that panders to the worst in us only lends credence to the terrorists' twisted analysis of our society. Such threats as Ted Cruz's promise to "carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion" and see "if sand can glow in the dark," are more worthy of the propagandists of North Korea. The effect of such bombastic posturing is too often the opposite of what is intended.

We seem to have forgotten the first half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice to "speak softly and carry a big stick" — a lapse of memory that advantages only terrorist recruiters.

Jack Sears was appointed a U.S. State Department foreign service officer in 1968 and served until 1995, holding positions at American embassies and consulates in Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cyprus and Pakistan. He lives in Port Orchard.
MY TURN | The Cold War wasn’t won with bluster

 

[rdean]

It just doesn't rise to the level of common sense. Most of these threads are from Liberals bashing Trump for his not appearing on the Republican debate. Why? He's not about to get their votes. Neither are any of the other Republican candidates. From the report of the viewership of the last Democrat debate, these Liberals didn't even watch that one. It is true that Liberal logic is as elusive as is the Missing Link.

Why on earth would you think WE are upset?

 

[bodecea]

How does one mistake laughing for "upset"?

How would anyone mistake you for a Republican or a conservative?

It's no mistake and you're neither.

that's right, it's no mistake when every conservative Republican in this forum says g5000 is no conservative and no Republican.

Oh...we vote on our political credentials now?

Where did I mention voting?

You have said "every conservative Republican in this forum says...." How did you come to that conclusion if not by voting?

 

[daws101]

How would anyone mistake you for a Republican or a conservative?

It's no mistake and you're neither.

that's right, it's no mistake when every conservative Republican in this forum says g5000 is no conservative and no Republican.

Oh...we vote on our political credentials now?

Where did I mention voting?

You have said "every conservative Republican in this forum says...." How did you come to that conclusion if not by voting?

his imaginary friend, the one who tells him to set fires .

 

[Conservative65]

Ronald Reagan skipped the debate right before the Iowa caucus and kicked the ass of the Russkies in the Cold War so who is the pussy now?

Reagan did not kick any ass of anybody the Soviet Union collapsed not because of Reagan but in spite of him.
He just took credit for it and dumbfucks like yourself swallowed it.

Actually Reagan wasn't even in office any more. By that point he didn't even know where he was.

Are you saying what Jimmy Carter did over 10 years before the USSR disbanded caused it?

yes and all the other presidents before him
By Jack Sears, Port Orchard

Columnist Ed Palm's reassessment of President Ronald Reagan in the Jan. 10 Kitsap Sun ("Reagan's acting lesson for Obama") brought to mind an aspect of Reagan's legacy that manages to color today's presidential race: the contention on the part of some candidates that the best foreign policy requires a muscular, even threatening, posture that will intimidate our enemies to the point of their giving up.

The often cited proof of this theory is that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War through a display of tough rhetoric and an aggressive military buildup that a bankrupt economy in the Soviet Union that couldn't compete against. Further, it was widely believed, Reagan helped bring the Berlin Wall tumbling down with the exhortation: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I'm afraid that none of this is supported by the facts. Much of the American public, influenced by American-oriented media coverage and the perhaps wishful thinking of President Reagan's many admirers, came to believe that he had indeed bullied the Soviets into submission, ending the Cold War and leading to the dissolution of the USSR itself.

Few people, at the time or since, thought to test that theory against the reality of what actually was happening in the Soviet Union, or what its leaders thought about Reagan. In 1994, however, two distinguished political scientists did in fact interview then Soviet President Gorbachev and other Soviet officials for an article titled "Reagan and the Russians," which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1994.

Their conclusion: "The Carter-Reagan military buildup did not defeat the Soviet Union. On the contrary, it prolonged the Cold War."

How could that be? According to the magazine, Mr. Gorbachev had become convinced over time that the U.S. would not attack the USSR unless provoked, and so was not intimidated by Reagan's aggressive military stance which, according to Gorbachev, only made it more difficult for him to convince Soviet generals and officials of his view of a nonthreatening United States. Moreover, Soviet military spending, according to CIA figures, did not escalate but remained constant during the Reagan years. Any competition with expensive U.S. military programs such as SDI was imaginary, and clearly did not bankrupt the Soviet economy (even though the long-continuing history of high military expenditures helped drag it down).

As for the Berlin Wall, its demise was initiated by an onslaught of East Germans responding to a mistaken newscast claiming that the East German border was suddenly open to everyone. This occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, in 1989, not during the Reagan presidency, and the actual demolition of the wall didn't begin for another year. There is little evidence, according to Time magazine, that Reagan's speech had any impact at all on the fate of the wall, much less on the Soviet leaders he addressed in his speech at Brandenburg Gate.

Blustery displays may play well politically, but they seldom make for good foreign policy. In the worst case, the harsh rhetoric that panders to the worst in us only lends credence to the terrorists' twisted analysis of our society. Such threats as Ted Cruz's promise to "carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion" and see "if sand can glow in the dark," are more worthy of the propagandists of North Korea. The effect of such bombastic posturing is too often the opposite of what is intended.

We seem to have forgotten the first half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice to "speak softly and carry a big stick" — a lapse of memory that advantages only terrorist recruiters.

Jack Sears was appointed a U.S. State Department foreign service officer in 1968 and served until 1995, holding positions at American embassies and consulates in Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cyprus and Pakistan. He lives in Port Orchard.
MY TURN | The Cold War wasn’t won with bluster

The only thing Carter did was bend over for them.

 

[daws101]

Ronald Reagan skipped the debate right before the Iowa caucus and kicked the ass of the Russkies in the Cold War so who is the pussy now?

Reagan did not kick any ass of anybody the Soviet Union collapsed not because of Reagan but in spite of him.
He just took credit for it and dumbfucks like yourself swallowed it.

Actually Reagan wasn't even in office any more. By that point he didn't even know where he was.

Are you saying what Jimmy Carter did over 10 years before the USSR disbanded caused it?

yes and all the other presidents before him
By Jack Sears, Port Orchard

Columnist Ed Palm's reassessment of President Ronald Reagan in the Jan. 10 Kitsap Sun ("Reagan's acting lesson for Obama") brought to mind an aspect of Reagan's legacy that manages to color today's presidential race: the contention on the part of some candidates that the best foreign policy requires a muscular, even threatening, posture that will intimidate our enemies to the point of their giving up.

The often cited proof of this theory is that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War through a display of tough rhetoric and an aggressive military buildup that a bankrupt economy in the Soviet Union that couldn't compete against. Further, it was widely believed, Reagan helped bring the Berlin Wall tumbling down with the exhortation: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I'm afraid that none of this is supported by the facts. Much of the American public, influenced by American-oriented media coverage and the perhaps wishful thinking of President Reagan's many admirers, came to believe that he had indeed bullied the Soviets into submission, ending the Cold War and leading to the dissolution of the USSR itself.

Few people, at the time or since, thought to test that theory against the reality of what actually was happening in the Soviet Union, or what its leaders thought about Reagan. In 1994, however, two distinguished political scientists did in fact interview then Soviet President Gorbachev and other Soviet officials for an article titled "Reagan and the Russians," which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1994.

Their conclusion: "The Carter-Reagan military buildup did not defeat the Soviet Union. On the contrary, it prolonged the Cold War."

How could that be? According to the magazine, Mr. Gorbachev had become convinced over time that the U.S. would not attack the USSR unless provoked, and so was not intimidated by Reagan's aggressive military stance which, according to Gorbachev, only made it more difficult for him to convince Soviet generals and officials of his view of a nonthreatening United States. Moreover, Soviet military spending, according to CIA figures, did not escalate but remained constant during the Reagan years. Any competition with expensive U.S. military programs such as SDI was imaginary, and clearly did not bankrupt the Soviet economy (even though the long-continuing history of high military expenditures helped drag it down).

As for the Berlin Wall, its demise was initiated by an onslaught of East Germans responding to a mistaken newscast claiming that the East German border was suddenly open to everyone. This occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, in 1989, not during the Reagan presidency, and the actual demolition of the wall didn't begin for another year. There is little evidence, according to Time magazine, that Reagan's speech had any impact at all on the fate of the wall, much less on the Soviet leaders he addressed in his speech at Brandenburg Gate.

Blustery displays may play well politically, but they seldom make for good foreign policy. In the worst case, the harsh rhetoric that panders to the worst in us only lends credence to the terrorists' twisted analysis of our society. Such threats as Ted Cruz's promise to "carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion" and see "if sand can glow in the dark," are more worthy of the propagandists of North Korea. The effect of such bombastic posturing is too often the opposite of what is intended.

We seem to have forgotten the first half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice to "speak softly and carry a big stick" — a lapse of memory that advantages only terrorist recruiters.

Jack Sears was appointed a U.S. State Department foreign service officer in 1968 and served until 1995, holding positions at American embassies and consulates in Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cyprus and Pakistan. He lives in Port Orchard.
MY TURN | The Cold War wasn’t won with bluster

The only thing Carter did was bend over for them.

history says different, but history like facts are far too advanced concepts for you to grasp

 

[BlindBoo]

My eyes...........

 

[daws101]

My eyes...........