The Don

Trump and his fascist ways were funny a few months ago

it isn't anymore

it's honestly how sad this country is now imo

i say that cause his stances that should be insane to any sane person is embraced by the republican base and his support grows with each insane thing he spouts and gives legitimacy to the attacks on people in this country cause they aren't like what trump says cause he doesn't denounce them (cause you know, PC and whatever bull**** they are saying now)

8 years of hating the black man that was really just a moderate republican for the most part has bread this insane group of ****boys
 
I'm starting to think Trump might actually bring the sane parts of this country together—even across ideological divides. I'm positing this, largely, because I have to say that Rand Paul and Marco Rubio—even though I strongly disagree with them on several policy fronts—seemed at least like sane ****ing human beings sharing the stage with Donald Trump (and, to a lesser extent Carson and Cruz—who are definitely out on the insane vanguard).

(Meanwhile, Fiorina and Christie seemed too fringey and bellicose, while Bush and Kasich just seem confused out there.)

I'm not saying I'd rush out to vote for Paul or Rubio in the general, but they at least seem ideologically consistent, present real arguments, and aren't total caricatures. I wouldn't loathe watching either individual debate Bernie Sanders, because I think we might seem actual ideas debated—which would be refreshing, even if I personally prefer one of those sets of ideas.
 
I am starting to think this democracy thing was a mistake. I think we should choose our president with an 8 man one night old school UFC tournament.
 
jpx7 said:
I'm starting to think Trump might actually bring the sane parts of this country together—even across ideological divides. I'm positing this, largely, because I have to say that Rand Paul and Marco Rubio—even though I strongly disagree with them on several policy fronts—seemed at least like sane ****ing human beings sharing the stage with Donald Trump (and, to a lesser extent Carson and Cruz—who are definitely out on the insane vanguard).

(Meanwhile, Fiorina and Christie seemed too fringey and bellicose, while Bush and Kasich just seem confused out there.)

I'm not saying I'd rush out to vote for Paul or Rubio in the general, but they at least seem ideologically consistent, present real arguments, and aren't total caricatures. I wouldn't loathe watching either individual debate Bernie Sanders, because I think we might seem actual ideas debated—which would be refreshing, even if I personally prefer one of those sets of ideas.
Click to expand...

It's almost counter-intuitive, but you could be right. I don't watch the debates. They almost always give me my Fred G. Sanford "Elizabeth, I'm coming to join you!" reaction. But it seems everyone was using their inside voices the other night and when most people use their inside voices, they seem sane. One can disagree with the content of the ideas presented, but it's always productive when they are discussed without a lot of venom and personal attacks. All I know is Jeb Bush has to be bemoaning his inability to knock Trump off stride. Jeb's a reasonable guy who Trump has managed to twist into a pretzel.
 
falcons.jpg
 
weso1 said:
And that's good. It's healthy. Better than what the democrats are doing by trying their best to hand the nomination to who they think is best for you.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about. Hillary finished 2nd 8 years ago, when most people expected her to win, and has since been Sec. of State while shoring up her support and finances for another run. It makes perfect sense for her to be sitting in the cat bird seat for 2016. Bernie is doing everything he can to give her some competition.

Republicans are against the idea of her just like they were/are against the idea of a President Obama, but a Democrat in the White House is good for America business. I think Wall Street would much prefer Hillary over Trump and Hillary over Bernie.
 
Runnin said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Hillary finished 2nd 8 years ago, when most people expected her to win, and has since been Sec. of State while shoring up her support and finances for another run. It makes perfect sense for her to be sitting in the cat bird seat for 2016. Bernie is doing everything he can to give her some competition.

Republicans are against the idea of her just like they were/are against the idea of a President Obama, but a Democrat in the White House is good for America business. I think Wall Street would much prefer Hillary over Trump and Hillary over Bernie.
Click to expand...

Of course they would... more government spending is good for short term economics... but long term it is disasterous
 
Runnin said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Hillary finished 2nd 8 years ago, when most people expected her to win, and has since been Sec. of State while shoring up her support and finances for another run. It makes perfect sense for her to be sitting in the cat bird seat for 2016. Bernie is doing everything he can to give her some competition.

Republicans are against the idea of her just like they were/are against the idea of a President Obama, but a Democrat in the White House is good for America business. I think Wall Street would much prefer Hillary over Trump and Hillary over Bernie.
Click to expand...

Limit the number of debates. Put them at times when viewership will be at a minimum. Then Bernie doesn't press her on the server issue - just drops that line of attack altogether. Stupid move. Old Joe didn't enter the race, etc. Weso's point is obvious. The Dem machine is doing everything it can to coronate her. Much like the R machine was trying to give it to Bush.

Yes she lost last time around. Obama ran a fantastic campaign and put the party elites initially in an awkward position - but they soon fell in love with their new "clean and articulate," shiny toy. Now the party big wigs feel they owe it to Hillary since they jilted her last time. It's her due.

In that aspect she joins a line of loser candidates - McCain, Kerry, and Dole. Hopefully she'll be as successful as they were.
 
Then the DNC goes and does this - link. Yep, the fix is on. There will be no real competition. Big money fears they have too much to lose.

If it ends up (and I pray it doesn't) a Clinton vs. Trump choice, then you vote for the Banks if you vote for her and you vote for an Arsehole if you vote for him.

If you really want anti-establishment (against the de facto plutocracy) then you want Bernie, Paul, or Cruz. Can't see any of the other candidates as being anything else but various shades of the same thing, no matter their rhetoric.
 
BedellBrave said:
Then the DNC goes and does this - link. Yep, the fix is on. There will be no real competition. Big money fears they have too much to lose.

If it ends up (and I pray it doesn't) a Clinton vs. Trump choice, then you vote for the Banks if you vote for her and you vote for an Arsehole if you vote for him.

If you really want anti-establishment (against the de facto plutocracy) then you want Bernie, Paul, or Cruz. Can't see any of the other candidates as being anything else but various shades of the same thing, no matter their rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Michael Grunwald ‏@MikeGrunwald 3h3 hours ago

Looking forward to the next Democratic debate in Sitka, Alaska, at 2:43 a.m. on Christmas Day, airing on the Discovery Channel.

37 retweets 39 likes
 
BedellBrave said:
Then the DNC goes and does this - link. Yep, the fix is on. There will be no real competition. Big money fears they have too much to lose.

If it ends up (and I pray it doesn't) a Clinton vs. Trump choice, then you vote for the Banks if you vote for her and you vote for an Arsehole if you vote for him.

If you really want anti-establishment (against the de facto plutocracy) then you want Bernie, Paul, or Cruz. Can't see any of the other candidates as being anything else but various shades of the same thing, no matter their rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I'm also 100% sure that site purposely let the firewall down. Seriously it's sad to see the DNC stoop this low.
 
BedellBrave said:
Then the DNC goes and does this - link. Yep, the fix is on. There will be no real competition. Big money fears they have too much to lose.

If it ends up (and I pray it doesn't) a Clinton vs. Trump choice, then you vote for the Banks if you vote for her and you vote for an Arsehole if you vote for him.

If you really want anti-establishment (against the de facto plutocracy) then you want Bernie, Paul, or Cruz. Can't see any of the other candidates as being anything else but various shades of the same thing, no matter their rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You're gonna need to tell me what exactly you consider the plutocracy to be if you think Ted Cruz is against it.
 
Julio3000 said:
You're gonna need to tell me what exactly you consider the plutocracy to be if you think Ted Cruz is against it.
Click to expand...

You may be right. But establishment politicians across the board hate him. Maybe that's because he's an arse. Or...

Btw, I am no Cruz supporter. I'm also not necessarily anti-establishment. I am anti-Hillary though.
 
Julio3000 said:
You're gonna need to tell me what exactly you consider the plutocracy to be if you think Ted Cruz is against it.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. Sanders and Paul, sure: they're pretty easily construed as anti-oligarchy, in their various shades.

But Cruz? I'd really like someone who's more well-versed in his policy propositions to explain to me how he's that much different from Trump. Judging by the previous debate, his hair's a lot more real, and his bellicosity is a bit less strident; but other than that?
 
If the Republican establishment is in the pockets of a Big-business plutocracy and that establishment hates him with a passion (which by all accounts they do) then...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top