President Donald J. Trump

[GravitySucks]

Not so much. You have to remember, John Anderson was in the mix back then and peeling votes away from Reagan. Also, Reagan`s negatives were nothing near what Trump has now. Trump won`t garner even 30% of the female vote. He simply can`t make that up with angry, uneducated white males.

I would also note, Larry Sabato has been the most accurate political prognosticator in the business for over at least a decade since he`s been publishing his Crystal Ball. Take it to the bank; Trump has no chance in November. In fact, I`ll go as far as to say, if Trump is the GOP nominee, he will be defeated in a landslide of historical proportions...by whomever the DEM nominee is.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-03-30.html#read_more

[FightTheFuture]

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-03-30.html#read_more

Coulter is delusional. She is completely ignoring two factors: more people really really hate Trump, than like him, and he has turned a very large portion of the GOP base (me, and many many like me) against him with his constant schoolyard banter.

[nooryisawesome]

Coulter is delusional. She is completely ignoring two factors: more people really really hate Trump, than like him, and he has turned a very large portion of the GOP base (me, and many many like me) against him with his constant schoolyard banter.

We get it man, you don't like Trump. You post it over and over. We get it.

[GravitySucks]

Coulter is delusional. She is completely ignoring two factors: more people really really hate Trump, than like him, and he has turned a very large portion of the GOP base (me, and many many like me) against him with his constant schoolyard banter.

But I still have you on record that you WILL vote for him if he is the nominee. Now STFU.

[FightTheFuture]

But I still have you on record that you WILL vote for him if he is the nominee. Now STFU.

When I enter the polling booth...it will be my little secret for whom I vote.

[FightTheFuture]

We get it man, you don't like Trump. You post it over and over. We get it.

Well, in my defense, this is a thread about Trump, so it seems appropriate to discuss his shortcomings here.

[whoozit]

Well, in my defense, this is a thread about Trump, so it seems appropriate to discuss his shortcomings here.

I'm confused FTF.  Where do you stand on Trump?  It's hard to tell through your posts.

[akwilly]

I'm confused FTF.  Where do you stand on Trump?  It's hard to tell through your posts.

I'd also like to know how much Trump is paying him to post

[GravitySucks]

When I enter the polling booth...it will be my little secret for whom I vote.

Plausible deniability. I get it. Closet Trump supporter. Cool, your secret is safe with me.

Are you glad Heidi is heading home instead of campaigning in NJ with your trusTed candidate?  I wonder how much he can be trusTed alone with you precious favorite candidate, Carly.

Do you know if that $500 million that was transferred to Carly's PAC was hush money, or do you think maybe trusTed was tiring to buy a lil CEO lovin?  I think it was hush money. That's some big bucks. Especially for a first term senator.

Do you know what the status of the democrat's lawsuit against trusTed's Canadian birth is?  I tried to tell you back in January that it wasn't settled law.

I think Carly was still in the race then. I have a theory. You don't really hate Trump. You hate that you picked Carly and she fizzled. Then you picked, and prayed with trusTed and he fizzled. Did you pray with Carly?  Maybe you should have prayed harder with trusTed. Maybe you prayed that God's will should be done. And maybe it is God's will that Trump get the nomination. If that is the case, are you really ready to place yourself and your desires ahead of God's will? 

This is bigger than you or I. I started out this whole saga as a Cruz supporter. I spoke about that in these threads. It became evident to me that he could not win a general election. So far that has proven out by his performance in the primaries. If these allegations of sexual misconduct end up being true, he will go the way of Asa Hutchinson. Holier than though, until it comes to women.

If you support Cruz now, why don't you go to the Cruz thread and make your case on why he should be the nominee. I'm worrying that if you keep hanging around here, your blood pressure is going to reach unhealthy levels. I don't want you to stroke out before the convention.

[RealCool Daddio]

Nope.  Any Pres is connected with his advisers 24/7. The good Presidents usually have smart advisors.  The bad ones are surrounded by party hacks. I'll take Trump's Rolodex over any of the ideologue retreads advising the rest of the field, not on the best course of action for the country, but the best short term political course of action. 

Thereby proving that Trump is unfit for office.

If his rolodex of business connections is so impressive, how is it that he has managed to surround himself with a team that can't even get him prepared for simple interviews?  They failed to prepare him for his interviews with WaPo, where he ended up looking like a simpleton, they failed to prepare him for his interview with the Times, where he ended up looking deranged, they failed to prepare him for Matthews, etc., etc. Any competent person - politician, business man, GM of a sports team, whatever - would have fired the lot of them for incompetence long ago.  But Trump only fires people on TV.

One of the most important qualities in a President is there ability to pick a team, who will advise him or her on any number of matters of state.  The job is just way too big for one person to on top of all the issues, both domestic and foreign.  Trump is proving daily that his team is inept.  And that makes him the problem.

[Zetaspeak]

I have to say I am surprised most of his supporters haven't really seen through him yet. Trump reminded me of somebody, I couldn't think of it until last night and it hit me. Politics wise Trump is exactly like a Kristen Wiig character from SNL from a couple of years ago.This Wiig character would hear somebody story and then always add her own story but with much more exaggerated and unrealistic add-ins. For example, somebody would say "My 3 beautiful kids are singing at the church choir this weekend" Wiig would jump in and say "I have 4 Kids! They are all in modeling contracts, and signed to multi-million record labels". Somebody else would say "I had a great vacation, bumped to first class and was a great resort". Of course Wiig would mention "I went on vacation too! I got to sit at the cockpit, the pilot let my fly the plane, I got an island to myself" Somebody else would say "I had great seats at the baseball game, front row right down the 3rd base line" Wiig would jump into the conversation and say "I went to the baseball game too, I got to sit in the dug out, they let me pitch an inning, I got three strikeouts" After the second or third tall tail by Wiig everybody in the room knows she's full of crap

What does this have to do with Trump? What ever the conservative side is, Trump doesn't just agree with it, he adds a absurd and ludicrous add-on to it. The abortion issue he did right now was a perfect example, he not just want to say he's pro-life, he got to prove it he needs to take it to a level that most pro-lifers don't want in throwing potential moms in prison.  Immigration, he can't just believe in enforcing tougher laws, he needs to build a giant wall and somehow have  Mexico build it. He can't just have tighter security and an anti-terrorism plan he is going to illogically pin-point every muslim and ban them.

The term, "trying too hard" comes to mind. You've seen it before in other situation of people who isn't comfortable in a situation so they really try to exaggerate everything to compensate it. Think George Noory when talking about guns, the guy knows gun culture is big with the C2C crowd so he hypes even though the way he does it sounds disingenuous. It's kinda like Trump, he's trying to convince people so badly he's a conservative, he just seems forced and over-the-top.

I don't think he really had no values for any cause except getting himself more popular, the guy just seems like if there was an open spot in the Democratic side he would be left of Sanders. He is saying what people want to hear (or think what people want to hear), even if nothing adds up or an impossible task. Back to the Kristen Wiig example of of the people are believing his "stories" while the other half, know what he's throwing out is complete fantasy.

[VtaGeezer]

Gosh, where do I begin with all this crapola? Sorry but there's no other word and it's fully justified. NATO helped to win the Cold War and only a few years later found that the Soviet Union wasn't the only threat in Europe. So it won another war, this time against a bunch of genocidal nationalists. NATO was also instrumental in helping to defeat Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Today, it defends the same former Soviet satellites it helped to liberate, this time from a guy named Putin.

European nations often don't pay their fair share and that needs to change. This doesn't necessitate threatening to scrap the alliance. There are better ways to get cooperation from your allies than trying to bully them. Not, though, according to Trump"s philosophy.

Your analysis on North Korea is fairly ignorant. At this point, they're not holding anyone hostage or extracting concessions from the U.S. They are under a total embargo of U.S. goods, including food. Everything going into and out of that country is subject to inspection. They have some black market trade and food/oil from the Chinese. That is all they've got and the Chinese are starting to tire of their antics.

Your notion that the U.S. would sacrifice our own cities before acting against a NK invasion is too stupid for words. So is the idea that a South Korean nuclear capability would change any of the North's behavior. None of the countries under our nuclear umbrella have ever been invaded or seriously attacked. Nobody has dared or would dare -- unless maybe we put some doofus in the White House.

I'm not even going to address the whole insane idea of throwing our entire post-WWII policy against nuclear proliferation out the window. That one should get any politician locked in a rubber room.

You're impossibly naive and disingenuous. You constantly take Trump's statements out of context or simply replace them with things you think the media's version of Trump would say.  There's no countering that kind of artifice.

US policy toward NK since the 1990s has been a complete disaster.   They're now a nuclear power run by a spoiled inexperienced punk.  And you actually believe the Chinese scold him!  And that they (China) have only the most peaceful intentions toward their Asian brothers in the China Sea.  And that the Kim Regime gives a damn about sanctions so long as they can keep the army loyal.  And that we'd actually retaliate against Kim with nukes if Seattle were incinerated while Samsung and Hyundai SK was left intact.   And that the thought of  the defense budgets of NATO's many freeloaders keeps Putin (and for that matter al Baghdadi) awake at night. (It does; they' can't stop chuckling.)  BTW, when you think of post-Cold War NATO, think of the Balkans in the 90s.

You're the establishment's dream voter.   Keep your thoughts inside the box; it's scary outside it.

[VtaGeezer]

"If only the GOP had gone after Obama the way they've gone after Trump!"  - Dennis Miller

[FightTheFuture]

Trump nuke comments shock allies
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/index.html

[VtaGeezer]

Trump nuke comments shock allies
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/index.html

They shocked Beijing and Pyongyang a lot more, and that's a very good thing. 

[Jackstar]

You're impossibly naive and disingenuous. You constantly take Drumpf's statements out of context or simply replace them with things you think the media's version of Drumpf would say.  There's no countering that kind of artifice.

[Value Of Pi]

GS, Donald is no Reagan.  Reagan was a uniter not a divider. I'll be frank.  Of the 3 people running currently, Kasich would have the best chance if he had the delegates. I really hate to say that as a Cruz supporter but it is simply a fact.  Kasich is palatable to many who lean to the left and he would kill Hillary in an election.  Both Trump and Cruz have an uphill battle and Donald is really screwing up his chances with his latest blunders.

Kasich was the only one at the debates who appealed to me and he's still the only candidate I'd have no problem voting for. If the Republican Party wants to win, he is IMO the way to go. After the first ballot, that's how I'd sell it: go for Kasich if you want to beat Hillary.

[Value Of Pi]

You're impossibly naive and disingenuous. You constantly take Trump's statements out of context or simply replace them with things you think the media's version of Trump would say.  There's no countering that kind of artifice.

US policy toward NK since the 1990s has been a complete disaster.   They're now a nuclear power run by a spoiled inexperienced punk.  And you actually believe the Chinese scold him!  And that they (China) have only the most peaceful intentions toward their Asian brothers in the China Sea.  And that the Kim Regime gives a damn about sanctions so long as they can keep the army loyal.  And that we'd actually retaliate against Kim with nukes if Seattle were incinerated while Samsung and Hyundai SK was left intact.   And that the thought of  the defense budgets of NATO's many freeloaders keeps Putin (and for that matter al Baghdadi) awake at night. (It does; they' can't stop chuckling.)  BTW, when you think of post-Cold War NATO, think of the Balkans in the 90s.

You're the establishment's dream voter.   Keep your thoughts inside the box; it's scary outside it.

Naive and disingenuous, huh? I and everyone else are responding to what he's said over and over again. The context doesn't change the meaning.

A few facts. U.S. policy since the early 1950s has always been to respond to any nation's nuclear attack on the U.S. (including Seattle) with our own nuclear weapons. No exceptions for North Korea or anyone else. And no serious debate in either party on this policy. I have no idea where you get the idea that we would do anything less than turn North Korea into an instant wasteland.

I said nothing about Chinese actions or intentions in other parts of Asia, but I don't see the U.S. or anyone else rolling over anytime soon. The Chinese can claim any domain or territory or control they want in the South China Sea, but the U.S. can and will continue to stand in their way, just as it has for decades in Taiwan.

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make here about NATO or Putin, but in general you seem to miss the fact that NATO not only prevented Russian aggression in Europe in the past but is still doing it -- and is meanwhile expanding eastward to former Soviet republics. None of this, btw, has anything to do with who's laughing and who's not. Geopolitics is not about who's laughing and who's not. That's what high school is for.

Now, allow me to shock you once again. Our policy via North Korea, which has always been to contain and eventually eliminate that regime, has been mostly successful. South Korea has thrived in spite of their menace to the north as have other Asian nations. We, and the rest of the world, failed to stop them getting nukes and they have several. So far, that hasn't been a huge factor strategically, but it might get to that point as their technology improves.

In retrospect, there's not much we could have done differently to get a better result. Sad to say, but it's true. Short of invading North Korea, nothing would have stopped them from acquiring these weapons and invasion wasn't an acceptable option. It will come down to convincing the Chinese that it's in their interests to make a change in North Korea's government, using whatever pressure we need to. Until then, providing ABM systems to South Korea, supplemented by our own ABMs, under our nuclear umbrella, will have to do.

[VtaGeezer]

Naive and disingenuous, huh? I and everyone else are responding to what he's said over and over again. The context doesn't change the meaning.

A few facts. U.S. policy since the early 1950s has always been to respond to any nation's nuclear attack on the U.S. (including Seattle) with our own nuclear weapons. No exceptions for North Korea or anyone else. And no serious debate in either party on this policy. I have no idea where you get the idea that we would do anything less than turn North Korea into an instant wasteland.

The policy has, thankfully, never been tested and is a remnant of a generation that fought WWII and would back it up.  They're now gone.  When was that last time you heard it articulated, as it was done often in Cold War and before US corporations became dependent on Asia for labor and products (ie profit). A strike on S Korea would do more damage to the US consumer-based economy than a strike on Seattle. Public sentiment and Washington's priorities have changed radically since Eisenshower's day. The Waltons and the other big box retail giants who write the PAC checks won't allow a war in Korea (or China); it would be devastating for business.

I said nothing about Chinese actions or intentions in other parts of Asia, but I don't see the U.S. or anyone else rolling over anytime soon. The Chinese can claim any domain or territory or control they want in the South China Sea, but the U.S. can and will continue to stand in their way, just as it has for decades in Taiwan. 

Japan is terrified by China's moves.  China will flex its muscles when they're ready.  They're not spending hundreds of billions on a blue water Navy and man-made islands to fend off an invasion. The DF 21 antiship missile is a carrier killer and has already intimidated our naval planners, as have their subs, and we send only a lone destroyer to challenge their SCS activity.  At some point they'll test our bluster and, unless Washington priorities change, we'll get a big shock. Maybe  in a parallel universe HHRH would go to war with China over the abstract principal of free passage in the China Sea, but not in this one.  Raising just the notion of a nuclear-armed Japan could radically change China's intimidating attitude.

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make here about NATO or Putin, but in general you seem to miss the fact that NATO not only prevented Russian aggression in Europe in the past but is still doing it -- and is meanwhile expanding eastward to former Soviet republics. None of this, btw, has anything to do with who's laughing and who's not. Geopolitics is not about who's laughing and who's not. That's what high school is for.

What's "high school" is taking a figure of speech literally. You're stuck in an era that ended 25 years ago with the Soviet disintegration.  Since then, the continental elements of NATO, except France, have atrophied.  They spend their money on wonderful infrastructure, subsidizing business to compete against the US, and social programs while the US still provides the backbone.  They're chronically below agreed-upon defense spending (see chart).They've proven unable to deal with any crisis in their own neighborhood.  Bosnia...oops.  Kosovo...oops.  Libya (which was to be a Euro show)...oops.  Crimea...oops.  Ukraine...oops.  NATO Euros play patti-cake against ISIS while Putin moves into Syria with alacrity and puts Assad back on top. Yeah...what a strong and stouthearted bunch that NATO is.  Like I said, Putin can't stop chuckling. Trump has said the Cold War NATO is obsolete, and parsing notwithstanding, he's 100% correct. He hasn't said the principal of a European alliance should be abandoned as CNN and you are implying.

Now, allow me to shock you once again. Our policy via North Korea, which has always been to contain and eventually eliminate that regime, has been mostly successful. South Korea has thrived in spite of their menace to the north as have other Asian nations. We, and the rest of the world, failed to stop them getting nukes and they have several. So far, that hasn't been a huge factor strategically, but it might get to that point as their technology improves.

In retrospect, there's not much we could have done differently to get a better result. Sad to say, but it's true. Short of invading North Korea, nothing would have stopped them from acquiring these weapons and invasion wasn't an acceptable option. It will come down to convincing the Chinese that it's in their interests to make a change in North Korea's government, using whatever pressure we need to. Until then, providing ABM systems to South Korea, supplemented by our own ABMs, under our nuclear umbrella, will have to do.

The only thing that shocks me is your ability to absorb political spin as fact.  "Mostly successful"?? NK is stronger than ever.  "South Korea has thrived" is exactly the point.   S Korea doesn't "thrive" because of their military (not much more than half the size of NK's btw), they thrive because we peeled off a couple million good American jobs and the best of US consumer technology, and sent them to S Korea.  The world's largest TV factory used to be in Syracuse NY.  Hyundai and Kia's US import subsidiary leases acres of land and has built facilities on an active US Navy base in So CA to process and store tens of thousands of Korean-made cars annually...for peanuts, and pay virtually no local taxes.  US policy has been to trade American jobs and prosperity for Asian stability and it hasn't worked.  It's financed China becoming a military and economic threat and enfeebled the US strategic manufacturing base.

"In retrospect, there's not much we could have done differently to get a better result."  The Washington's hankie wavers mortgaged our long term security in exchange for S Korea's comfort, with a nuclear-armed bandit-king now holding the note. This won't end well.  We're a self-funded mercenary defender slowly going broke.  We're heading down the same road to bankruptcy as the Soviets because we believe our own PR. Its past time to do something different about NK.  A nuke capability controlled by Seoul takes the Washington hankie wavers out of Kim's equation and gives the disarmament argument new meaning. As I said before, its time we think outside of the tattered old Cold war box.

[FightTheFuture]

It amazes me that the orange clown has the chutzpah to refer to Ted Cruz as a liar when, in fact, the orange clown is the most prolific liar in American political history! He just makes shit up and says it, and his cult followers buy it all day long. Like this little beauty:

http://therightscoop.com/watch-cnns-jake-tapper-busts-donald-trump-over-lying-about-ted-cruz-and-melania-ad/

[PathoJen]

They are both liars and they both have young wives. I'm so sick of seeing Art post about DT and Heather Wade. Stop already.

[Value Of Pi]

Quote from: VtaGeezer on Today at 01:14:07 PM


Trying to explain anything to you is like trying to explain to Trump himself. You're both unreachable. The only solution is just to keep Trump and his followers out of the White House -- and that will happen. Feel free to protest, or even riot, as your leader suggests. Let's see if he leaves the limo to join you.

[VtaGeezer]

Quote from: VtaGeezer on Today at 01:14:07 PM

Feel free to protest, or even riot, as your leader suggests.

Trump isn't my leader; as of today, I wouldn't vote for him, but that's precisely the sort of sniping distortion that gains Trump support.    I've been sticking up for him because people like you constantly put words in his mouth, pretend an obviously offhand crack by Trump is his position, or simply fabricate something negative, while ignoring the huge lies about the political history and positions of the others like HRHH and Cruz.  Better an articulate crook or zealot than a plain-speaking candidate who doesn't mealy-mouth his often common sense positions.

What Trump actually said (in the context of what if he's denied the nomination with a majority of delegates): "I think you'd have riots." 
You twist that to mean he "suggests" riots.  And you see no problem with doing it.  If you deny that he's correct you're also pretty foolish and more than naive.  You and most of the media keep implying that he threatens riots; that's the kind of political toxicity that has millions of his supporters incensed.  The elite and establishment are playing with fire and they (and you) want to blame those whom they constantly insult and ignore.  And Cruz said the same thing "I think the people would quite rightly revolt" but he's never accused of inciting rebellion.  He's nicer.  A fanatical ideologue, but well-spoken.

If Trump is the embodiment of ignorance and evil, why is it that you feel you must lie and distort to convince others of it?  It shouldn't be such a challenge.  There must a thick and wide trail of misdeeds.  So where are they?  Oh, I know; the Trump U business where 3 out of 800 top level enrollees (over 9,000 total) have sued for fraud' plus the Dem hack AG of NY..  Trump also has 22,000 employees; probably hundreds of ex-management employees who know him well and worked directly with him.  Don't you think its odd that no one has produced witnesses to his life of racism, abuse of women, and general evil?  There should be an army of  abused ex-Trump employees eager to see him go down. But no.  There's more background noise about Hillary's personal life than DTs.  Maybe he's paid them all off, eh?

[=Schlyder=]

Trump isn't my leader; as of today, I wouldn't vote for him, but that's precisely the sort of sniping distortion that gains Trump support.    I've been sticking up for him because people like you constantly put words in his mouth, pretend an obviously offhand crack by Trump is his position, or simply fabricate something negative, while ignoring the huge lies about the political history and positions of the others like HRHH and Cruz.  Better an articulate crook or zealot than a plain-speaking candidate who doesn't mealy-mouth his often common sense positions.

What Trump actually said (in the context of what if he's denied the nomination with a majority of delegates): "I think you'd have riots." 
You twist that to mean he "suggests" riots.  And you see no problem with doing it.  If you deny that he's correct you're also pretty foolish and more than naive.  You and most of the media keep implying that he threatens riots; that's the kind of political toxicity that has millions of his supporters incensed.  The elite and establishment are playing with fire and they (and you) want to blame those whom they constantly insult and ignore.  And Cruz said the same thing "I think the people would quite rightly revolt" but he's never accused of inciting rebellion.  He's nicer.  A fanatical ideologue, but well-spoken.


If Trump is the embodiment of ignorance and evil, why is it that you feel you must lie and distort to convince others of it?  It shouldn't be such a challenge.  There must a thick and wide trail of misdeeds.  So where are they?  Oh, I know; the Trump U business where 3 out of 800 top level enrollees (over 9,000 total) have sued for fraud' plus the Dem hack AG of NY..  Trump also has 22,000 employees; probably hundreds of ex-management employees who know him well and worked directly with him.  Don't you think its odd that no one has produced witnesses to his life of racism, abuse of women, and general evil?  There should be an army of  abused ex-Trump employees eager to see him go down. But no.  There's more background noise about Hillary's personal life than DTs.  Maybe he's paid them all off, eh?

^ mic drop   LOL

[Faustina]

If Trump doesn't have a good Wisconsin, we can pretty much thank Chris Matthews for his "gotcha" moment for the start of Trump's downhill slide.

To be clear, I don't dislike Trump --- I just think the odds that he'd really make a good President are slim.  It's too much of a gamble and so I won't vote for him.  I'm beginning to doubt he's really going to get the Republican Nomination anyhow.

[albrecht]

I have to say I am surprised most of his supporters haven't really seen through him yet. Trump reminded me of somebody, I couldn't think of it until last night and it hit me. Politics wise Trump is exactly like a Kristen Wiig character from SNL from a couple of years ago.This Wiig character would hear somebody story and then always add her own story but with much more exaggerated and unrealistic add-ins. For example, somebody would say "My 3 beautiful kids are singing at the church choir this weekend" Wiig would jump in and say "I have 4 Kids! They are all in modeling contracts, and signed to multi-million record labels". Somebody else would say "I had a great vacation, bumped to first class and was a great resort". Of course Wiig would mention "I went on vacation too! I got to sit at the cockpit, the pilot let my fly the plane, I got an island to myself" Somebody else would say "I had great seats at the baseball game, front row right down the 3rd base line" Wiig would jump into the conversation and say "I went to the baseball game too, I got to sit in the dug out, they let me pitch an inning, I got three strikeouts" After the second or third tall tail by Wiig everybody in the room knows she's full of crap

What does this have to do with Trump? What ever the conservative side is, Trump doesn't just agree with it, he adds a absurd and ludicrous add-on to it. The abortion issue he did right now was a perfect example, he not just want to say he's pro-life, he got to prove it he needs to take it to a level that most pro-lifers don't want in throwing potential moms in prison.  Immigration, he can't just believe in enforcing tougher laws, he needs to build a giant wall and somehow have  Mexico build it. He can't just have tighter security and an anti-terrorism plan he is going to illogically pin-point every muslim and ban them.

The term, "trying too hard" comes to mind. You've seen it before in other situation of people who isn't comfortable in a situation so they really try to exaggerate everything to compensate it. Think George Noory when talking about guns, the guy knows gun culture is big with the C2C crowd so he hypes even though the way he does it sounds disingenuous. It's kinda like Trump, he's trying to convince people so badly he's a conservative, he just seems forced and over-the-top.

I don't think he really had no values for any cause except getting himself more popular, the guy just seems like if there was an open spot in the Democratic side he would be left of Sanders. He is saying what people want to hear (or think what people want to hear), even if nothing adds up or an impossible task. Back to the Kristen Wiig example of of the people are believing his "stories" while the other half, know what he's throwing out is complete fantasy.

Sort of a "Four Yorkshireman" but for politics, I guess? The thing I say is that we need to think of it in terms of framing. Obviously we will never get a "pure" country political-wise because we are very diverse in opinion. But, most often, it is one side which compromises so, to me, I like the more extreme promises because it will always be compromised to get something passed. So you start with a position like "no more Muslims" once the negotiations and horse-trading happens, under pressure from the media and big oil Arab money, it would move into something like "Muslims applying for immigration or VISAs should be vetted and/or surveilled for a time period." Or "build a Wall and Mexico will pay" might morph in "at least secure the border" or "no more catch-and-release policies towards criminal illegals" per the Obama Doctrine or even "fine companies and have criminal penalties for who hires them" (doubt that will happen though.) But if we start with innocuous promises- like the identities of Muslim immigrant "refugees" should at least be verified the media, Democrats, etc with make the proposition get watered-down and we just continue in the Obama way of open-borders and unverified "refugees."

[WOTR]

Look at us saving money!  I can only imagine how much "better" this graph will look for us under Justin... Pulling our planes and troops out of war zones should help substantially. 

We can use the money saved to sponsor a few more refugees (there is no plan to build a wall along the 49th parallel, right?)

[Jackstar]

And you see no problem with doing it.

I'd like to take this moment to point out that you're arguing with a reprobate so odious, that removing the ability to ignore his vile drivel has literally driven me from this space.

Thank who you like.

[WOTR]

Thank who you like.

Praise Thank MV?

[GravitySucks]

I'd like to take this moment to point out that you're arguing with a reprobate so odious, that removing the ability to ignore his vile drivel has literally driven me from this space.

Thank who you like.

And yet you still come back with two different accounts. Call Gary Spivey STAT