Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees?

If he were to *court* my vote, yeah...

Because... let's face it... it's likely between Trump vs Clinton.

So, that's a gak sammich with pickle vs gak sammich with mustard.

No, absolutely not. You cannot pretend they are similar gak sandwiches. HRC is dirty, lying politics for sale, but still status quo essentially. She wouldn't be any worse than any other recent president.
Drumpf, on the other hand, is one international incident after another. You are throwing your support behind a man who is so insecure he felt that had to tell the whole world that "there's no problem" with his penis size. FFS.

I know you've been honing your Pavlovain hatred for HRC for years, but you must see that President Drumpf would be an epic disaster.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees?

If he were to *court* my vote, yeah...

Because... let's face it... it's likely between Trump vs Clinton.

So, that's a gak sammich with pickle vs gak sammich with mustard.

No, absolutely not. You cannot pretend they are similar gak sandwiches. HRC is dirty, lying politics for sale, but still status quo essentially. She wouldn't be any worse than any other recent president.
Drumpf, on the other hand, is one international incident after another. You are throwing your support behind a man who is so insecure he felt that had to tell the whole world that "there's no problem" with his penis size. FFS.

I know you've been honing your Pavlovain hatred for HRC for years, but you must see that President Drumpf would be an epic disaster.

Well then... we disagree on this.

Because, yes, they're both gak sammiches with different condiments.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees?

If he were to *court* my vote, yeah...

Because... let's face it... it's likely between Trump vs Clinton.

So, that's a gak sammich with pickle vs gak sammich with mustard.

No, absolutely not. You cannot pretend they are similar gak sandwiches. HRC is dirty, lying politics for sale, but still status quo essentially. She wouldn't be any worse than any other recent president.
Drumpf, on the other hand, is one international incident after another. You are throwing your support behind a man who is so insecure he felt that had to tell the whole world that "there's no problem" with his penis size. FFS.

I know you've been honing your Pavlovain hatred for HRC for years, but you must see that President Drumpf would be an epic disaster.

Well then... we disagree on this.

Because, yes, they're both gak sammiches with different condiments.

That is pretty naive to say that HRC is literally the same as trump. I could list examples but pick a page in the past 20 or so and you will find them.


In other news the turtle said that the senate will not consider the SC pick

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-republicans-supreme-court-nominee_us_56e98c18e4b065e2e3d81d08?section=politics

Within minutes of Obama's news on Garland, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was already declaring his nomination dead on arrival.

"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court's direction," McConnell said in a statement. "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President nominates, whoever that might be."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, echoed McConnell's sentiments, saying the Senate should punt the nomination to 2017 because it would "get bogged down in politics" this year.

The best thing to do now, he said, is spend the year debating "the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government."

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees?

If he were to *court* my vote, yeah...

Because... let's face it... it's likely between Trump vs Clinton.

So, that's a gak sammich with pickle vs gak sammich with mustard.

No, absolutely not. You cannot pretend they are similar gak sandwiches. HRC is dirty, lying politics for sale, but still status quo essentially. She wouldn't be any worse than any other recent president.
Drumpf, on the other hand, is one international incident after another. You are throwing your support behind a man who is so insecure he felt that had to tell the whole world that "there's no problem" with his penis size. FFS.

I know you've been honing your Pavlovain hatred for HRC for years, but you must see that President Drumpf would be an epic disaster.

Well then... we disagree on this.

Because, yes, they're both gak sammiches with different condiments.

Aw, no man. I used to think you were cool.


Anyone else think Drumpf says stupid gak like "We'll torture em!" and "Riot for me!" on purpose? Then he quietly retracts it the next day because his mouthbreathers will only remember that he said it, not that he recanted?

You don't [I]have[I] to vote (we're not Australians, after all), and third party options are always available if you don't like either of the major candidates.

Just sayin...

 jasper76 wrote:
You don't [I]have[I] to vote (we're not Australians, after all), and third party options are always available if you don't like either of the major candidates.

Just sayin...

True... I'm still thinking of just writing in Deadpool.

 feeder wrote:


Anyone else think Drumpf says stupid gak like "We'll torture em!" and "Riot for me!" on purpose? Then he quietly retracts it the next day because his mouthbreathers will only remember that he said it, not that he recanted?

I'm right there with you. Trump is a master at passive-aggression, and his pseudo apologies and take-backs complete with wink-wink do not fool me in the least.

How many times have we heard him say "I would never say that" about one of his quotes?

It still baffles me that they're sticking to that "Let the People decide" nonsense to obstruct the SC nominee.

The past 8 years of Obama as our president is not "Will of the people" enough for him?

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:


Anyone else think Drumpf says stupid gak like "We'll torture em!" and "Riot for me!" on purpose? Then he quietly retracts it the next day because his mouthbreathers will only remember that he said it, not that he recanted?

I'm right there with you. Trump is a master at passive-aggression, and his pseudo apologies and take-backs complete with wink-wink do not fool me in the least.

How many times have we heard him say "I would never say that" about one of his quotes?

It is almost literally how the Russian government dealt with the pogroms. Spewing nationalist hatred that they knew would get the people riled up and start hurting people, only to come in a few days later after the incidents and take it all back saying they never meant for it to be like this.

 feeder wrote:

Anyone else think Drumpf says stupid gak like "We'll torture em!" and "Riot for me!" on purpose? Then he quietly retracts it the next day because his mouthbreathers will only remember that he said it, not that he recanted?

I have been thinking something along those lines, yeah. There does seem to be some sort of very specific choices of words and phrasing that aren't just a case of running off the mouth. I first noticed in the KKK interview then Philip De Franco brought it up in a vlog as well. It's like a calculated 'plausible deniability' thing. It's growing to be the scariest thing about it all...

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees?

If he were to *court* my vote, yeah...

Because... let's face it... it's likely between Trump vs Clinton.

So, that's a gak sammich with pickle vs gak sammich with mustard.

Pick one.

.

I agree, it may be a gak sandwich, but one may make you Ill. and one might kill you. Not all gak sandwiches are created equal. Do you really think the gak that Trump is feeding people will in any way not make their lives worse? If not, why not just abstain? Or write in?

 CptJake wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs."

You just said "we" create the jobs, contradicting yourself.

You missed the word don't between we and create.

Still a bunch of bull. Businesses only hire when they have no other alternative. They don't hire because they have extra money (They just pocket that). The rich are not the job creators...It is the middle class and poor consumers by creating demand that business owners can not handle by themselves.

 whembly wrote:

Sanders has a misguided heart of Gold.

The FEC cares to differ http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/26/fec-sanders-isnt-in-compliance-with-disclosure-requirements/. Unless you mean to say that the gold is from illegal contributions.

Foreigners please leave our politics alone, if I wanted to live like a european I would move to europe.

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs."

You just said "we" create the jobs, contradicting yourself.

You missed the word don't between we and create.

Still a bunch of bull. Businesses only hire when they have no other alternative. They don't hire because they have extra money (They just pocket that). The rich are not the job creators...It is the middle class and poor consumers by creating demand that business owners can not handle by themselves.

The demand has to be there bro...

And the business need to weigh in whether or not the estimated increase in revenue is worth the extra labor cost.

This entire thread is why trump exists. If anyone is wondering why he is leading, or why he is succeeding only look at how you have referred to his supporters and the american right in general.

When you call someone a flyover country mouthbreathing rube who cannot think for himself outside of yelling bible quotes and racism that HUMAN BEING might get tired of it eventually. Just be glad they are focusing their rage on a political campaign as opposed to tearing down the people who call them idiots and mouthbreathers like they should.

I do not doubt that if it broke down to fighting in the US as it seems it will in a few years these "racist whateverphobic mouth breathers" wouldn't even have to reload.

Not everyone has the advantage of a university indoctrination or 7 years worth of public indoctrination with a bit of literacy taught on the side. Be mindful of that.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
This entire thread is why trump exists. If anyone is wondering why he is leading, or why he is succeeding only look at how you have referred to his supporters and the american right in general.

When you call someone a flyover country mouthbreathing rube who cannot think for himself outside of yelling bible quotes and racism that HUMAN BEING might get tired of it eventually. Just be glad they are focusing their rage on a political campaign as opposed to tearing down the people who call them idiots and mouthbreathers like they should.

I do not doubt that if it broke down to fighting in the US as it seems it will in a few years these "racist whateverphobic mouth breathers" wouldn't even have to reload.

Not everyone has the advantage of a university indoctrination or 7 years worth of public indoctrination with a bit of literacy taught on the side. Be mindful of that.

Anger at liberals, anger at "indoctrination" public or otherwise, says that violence is okay, and talks about killing people.

Man this post has everything.

It didn't even have to reload!

 d-usa wrote:
It didn't even have to reload!

That's because I come standard with a regular sized 30 round magazine, not the high capacity 30 round magazine (gun control discussion is confusing).

I feel Trump doesn't just appeal to people who get called witches a lot, he also appeals to people who are witches.

 d-usa wrote:
It didn't even have to reload!

Not with my Pinko-eliminator 5000 it can kill damn liberals from dusk til dawn without reloading.

Let's leave it alone guys, no need to belabour the point. Let's not get bogged down because of a US Civil War Mk II fantasy post.

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It didn't even have to reload!

Not with my Pinko-eliminator 5000 it can kill damn liberals from dusk til dawn without reloading.

WE TRULY HAVEN'T LEFT THE MCCARTHY ERA OF INSULTS HAVE WE???
Honestly go find some right wing people and observe them, they have newer and better stuff than that.

Come on Dakka, you and statism are better than this.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
This entire thread is why trump exists. If anyone is wondering why he is leading, or why he is succeeding only look at how you have referred to his supporters and the american right in general.

When you call someone a flyover country mouthbreathing rube who cannot think for himself outside of yelling bible quotes and racism that HUMAN BEING might get tired of it eventually. Just be glad they are focusing their rage on a political campaign as opposed to tearing down the people who call them idiots and mouthbreathers like they should.

I do not doubt that if it broke down to fighting in the US as it seems it will in a few years these "racist whateverphobic mouth breathers" wouldn't even have to reload.

Not everyone has the advantage of a university indoctrination or 7 years worth of public indoctrination with a bit of literacy taught on the side. Be mindful of that.

Spoken like a true trumpeteer! You go girl! Keep fighting the anti intellectual argument, I'm sure it will get you important places someday. Oh, wait, you are thinking the world will end In a matter of days, never mind you have no future, no need to discuss ideas or propositions. Carry on with your dejecetitude.

But seriously guys, we're moving on now.

All the responses I got were exactly what I was expecting.

So does anyone want to take potshots at why Trump is popular?

Could be:
Reality TV tactics, the KKK controlling the entirety of the Republican base, anger at the political establishment, racism, or the fact that white guys are evil?

c'mon guys lets guess!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


Spoken like a true trumpeteer! You go girl! Keep fighting the anti intellectual argument, I'm sure it will get you important places someday. Oh, wait, you are thinking the world will end In a matter of days, never mind you have no future, no need to discuss ideas or propositions. Carry on with your dejecetitude.

Alright let's start, so why are people on the right always referred to as dumb?

(Never mind)

Well, this thread was fun while it lasted.

Does anyone know what the betting money is saying about the chance of a Brokered Convention for the R's? That seems to be the Establishments only hope at the moment.

Second, who would have thought Kasich would outlast soooo many others?

 Easy E wrote:
Well, this thread was fun while it lasted.

Does anyone know what the betting money is saying about the chance of a Brokered Convention for the R's? That seems to be the Establishments only hope at the moment.

Second, who would have thought Kasich would outlast soooo many others?

Isn't it literally impossible for him to win? I saw somewhere that he would need 112 percent of the delegates to win.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, this thread was fun while it lasted.

Does anyone know what the betting money is saying about the chance of a Brokered Convention for the R's? That seems to be the Establishments only hope at the moment.

Second, who would have thought Kasich would outlast soooo many others?

Isn't it literally impossible for him to win? I saw somewhere that he would need 112 percent of the delegates to win.

But he made it this far.

Anybody have anything to say on Trump's policy papers/ has anyone read them? (I am not trying to advertise anything, just realize how advertizy that looked, but I live in a smaller area so I haven't heard much on the campaign, I was just wondering what his actual policies are, not people's interpretations of him are.)

What I saw today is that Trump can still reach the mark by getting something like 55% of the remaining delegates.

I still think he's going to make it and we won't see a brokered convention...I think alot of this is just wishful thinking. He's building momentum by taking up all these early states. Motivational for Trump voters, and demotivational for the other dudes' voters.