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.
and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
You have no need to get emotional and see yourself in my description of Drumpf. Only people without character have a price. If you can be bought... you are not a man. You are shadow of a man...if even that.I understand a man that sets an example by his own actions long before he espouses something to fool illiterates. I dont do certain things in business simply because its against my beliefs no matter how much money I could make doing it. its called being a man which Drumpf is not.I have an innate distrust of con artists. Typically I dont like them. When a person says things like they are going to bring back jobs to the US but their actions show they outsource their jobs overseas its plain they are full of it.A bit ago, I made a thread here that referenced an article on Donald Trump, but the parameters of the debate I envisioned weren't as clear as I think they should have been. So I decided to make this thread, which I think makes it a lot clearer. I encourage people to quote excerpts of articles, along with the links to actual articles, or video clips to support one's viewpoint on Trump as a Presidential candidate. Personally, I think he'd make a terrible President. Here's 2 articles that I think make a good case as to why I believe this to be the case:
Ten Reasons to Not Elect Donald Trump
Seven Reasons Why Donald Trump Would Make a Terrible President
Thats because you dont understand business.
Everyone has a price and you Asclepias foolishly claiming you don't makes you more dishonest than Trump XXXX-- Mod Edit -- No Flames in the CDZ sjay
and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
4. He won't try to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Was there ever a candidate for the Presidency of the USA who tried to infringe the 2nd Amendment?
It's a strange observation to be made of a candidate for presidency, if we consider the constitution to be somewhat serious in its primary articles and then especially in its amendments.
Not POTUS, but plenty of other politicians, and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
Drumpf asked for proof of the obvious when he started his birther conspiracy.and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
4. He won't try to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Was there ever a candidate for the Presidency of the USA who tried to infringe the 2nd Amendment?
It's a strange observation to be made of a candidate for presidency, if we consider the constitution to be somewhat serious in its primary articles and then especially in its amendments.
Not POTUS, but plenty of other politicians, and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How so? Do you consider, for instance, universal background checks an infringement?
and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
"Infringement" is a legal term. Not some word you throw around when you don't know better (which you obviously do not).
Perhaps what's "obvious" to you is not so obvious to those of us who read?
and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
I am not asking for proof that you truly believe in what you stated. I am not asking for any proof whatsoever actually.
I am just curious and expectant that our discussion can be informative to me, and perhaps to you too as you may find appropriate.
No, I don't know the position she or her party holds concerning guns. That's why I am asking about it.
Drumpf asked for proof of the obvious when he started his birther conspiracy.and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
Donald Trump represents all that is wrong with America since the 1980s. He is Gordon Gekko, a fictional character in the 1987 film Wall Street, come to life. Except he was always there. Trump is what was commonly referred to way back when as, a member of the 'Lucky Sperm Cub' This was a reference people of his type used amongst themselves as a badge of honor: Success through birthright. It is what many of the founding generation of the United States of America found abhorrent.
It is more about what Donald Trump represents than what he is in reality. He is such a shifting shadow of a persona, it would be difficult for even those closest to him to tell you what he truly is about, what he feels, or thinks, or believes.
I believe Donald Trump is a pure sociopath.
Drumpf asked for proof of the obvious when he started his birther conspiracy.and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
What's a drumpf?
Donald Trump represents all that is wrong with America since the 1980s. He is Gordon Gekko, a fictional character in the 1987 film Wall Street, come to life. Except he was always there. Trump is what was commonly referred to way back when as, a member of the 'Lucky Sperm Cub' This was a reference people of his type used amongst themselves as a badge of honor: Success through birthright. It is what many of the founding generation of the United States of America found abhorrent.
It is more about what Donald Trump represents than what he is in reality. He is such a shifting shadow of a persona, it would be difficult for even those closest to him to tell you what he truly is about, what he feels, or thinks, or believes.
I believe Donald Trump is a pure sociopath.
Success through birthright....you mean besides everything he actually built.....compared to some heirs who sit on the butts and don't do anything...you mean besides that.....Trump tower only went up because he inhereted some money.....all the things he built just went up because he inherited some money...really? That's how it works in the construction business? Your dad had a business and so everyone just works for you and builds everything for you just because your dad was in the business....really?
4. He won't try to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Was there ever a candidate for the Presidency of the USA who tried to infringe the 2nd Amendment?
It's a strange observation to be made of a candidate for presidency, if we consider the constitution to be somewhat serious in its primary articles and then especially in its amendments.
Not POTUS, but plenty of other politicians, and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How so? Do you consider, for instance, universal background checks an infringement?
No, but we already have them. Registration is an infringement, preventing me from selling my guns to whom I want to is an infringement, regulating what guns I own is an infringement.
Drumpf asked for proof of the obvious when he started his birther conspiracy.and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
What's a drumpf?
The Trump name before it was changed.
4. He won't try to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Was there ever a candidate for the Presidency of the USA who tried to infringe the 2nd Amendment?
It's a strange observation to be made of a candidate for presidency, if we consider the constitution to be somewhat serious in its primary articles and then especially in its amendments.
Not POTUS, but plenty of other politicians, and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How so? Do you consider, for instance, universal background checks an infringement?
No, but we already have them. Registration is an infringement, preventing me from selling my guns to whom I want to is an infringement, regulating what guns I own is an infringement.
No, we do not already have universal background checks. Private sales are not even monitored, much less subject to background checks. Why do we have to explain the obvious to you? Hell, you contradicted your first sentence with your second.
I'm fine with you ignoring me. You're not a serious person.
Drumpf asked for proof of the obvious when he started his birther conspiracy.How is that true?
Would you like to support your claim with past evidence?
It's a curious perspective to uphold amendment infringement as a certain, possible or probable future.
Your use of the word "will", put in capitals, is unclear and at best ambiguous, considering the politico-literary references you are using.
Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
What's a drumpf?
The Trump name before it was changed.
Link.
Drumpf asked for proof of the obvious when he started his birther conspiracy.Why do you leftists always ask for proof of the obvious? Have you never heard her position on guns? Do you not know the position on guns her party holds? Or perhaps you have a different definition of infringement than I do.
What's a drumpf?
The Trump name before it was changed.
Link.
Ancestry of Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1608, Trump’s ancestor, Hans Drumpf, moved to Kallstadt, a village in the former Kingdom of Bavaria within the German Empire.[1] His family owned a vineyard.[1] Drumpf, the family’s ancestral name, was changed to Trump during Germany's Thirty Years' War in the seventeenth century.[1]
Was there ever a candidate for the Presidency of the USA who tried to infringe the 2nd Amendment?
It's a strange observation to be made of a candidate for presidency, if we consider the constitution to be somewhat serious in its primary articles and then especially in its amendments.
Not POTUS, but plenty of other politicians, and then there is Hillary who WILL infringe on them and select SCOTUS judges who will uphold it.
How so? Do you consider, for instance, universal background checks an infringement?
No, but we already have them. Registration is an infringement, preventing me from selling my guns to whom I want to is an infringement, regulating what guns I own is an infringement.
No, we do not already have universal background checks. Private sales are not even monitored, much less subject to background checks. Why do we have to explain the obvious to you? Hell, you contradicted your first sentence with your second.
I'm fine with you ignoring me. You're not a serious person.
Ok, you asked for infringements, I'll add "Universal Background checks" to that list.
Who said I was going to ignore you? You just make things up? I'm totally serious and your ridiculing me does not make you right.
Now, can we get back on track? This is about Trump being less of a threat to our 2A rights than Hillary.
