Agreed...
I will not vote for trump
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Agreed...
Please enlighten us as to what exactly Obama has proposed that has been good for the country? I am at a loss here, I cannot think of even one proposal that is not a benefit for some & a burden for others, or is outright fiscally unsustainable for the nation. I am not even going to touch his incompetence on domestic & foreign affairs which is utterly dismal.
Last edited:
People should be "very afraid" of electing a personally & professionally corrupt lying felon like Hillary Clinton. The woman is damaged goods and has no business near any public office but, I know you & the rest of the no standards liberals will vote for the criminal anyway, it is no wonder why the nation is in such trouble. :nono:
You mean he sounds like every other politician attempting to get elected... :chuckle: You said you would have voted for Kasich yet the reason he was wholly rejected was because he is a narcissist ego-maniac on par or worse than Trump, he even named himself "The Prince of Light & Hope" no joke. Now he sits at home and pouts, not understanding why people didn't like him, because in the end the only one that Kasich thinks about is Kasich. Every one of these people that seek high public office is a type "A" personality, and it is very rare to find one that is truly humble.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/133306/john-kasich-might-actually-narcissist-trump
This publication took as many liberties with the facts that Trump is being accused of taking, many of their points start with "Trump is correct but" or some other segue to spin his claims as either false, exaggerated, or attempting to squash it using alternate data. This piece can no more claim Trump was wrong any more than they can claim they are right on numerous points. The Washington Post is a liberal rag anyway, might as well get your info from Pravda, or National Inquirer, either one has just as much credibility.
Now now rocketman, don't go trashing that white trash tabloid the National Enquirer, as Don Trump's good friend David Pecker is the CEO there.
Donald Trump is ‘Very Close’ to National Enquirer Head David Pecker, Who Has Run Pieces for Him Before
https://latest.com/2016/03/yep-donald-trump-is-very-close-to-national-enquirer-head-david-pecker/
Two sleazeballs of a feather take sleazy pictures together.
Now now rocketman, don't go trashing that white trash tabloid the National Enquirer, as Don Trump's good friend David Pecker is the CEO there.
Donald Trump is ‘Very Close’ to National Enquirer Head David Pecker, Who Has Run Pieces for Him Before
https://latest.com/2016/03/yep-donald-trump-is-very-close-to-national-enquirer-head-david-pecker/
Two sleazeballs of a feather take sleazy pictures together.
I assume you'll be voting for Hitlary?
So you think because I refuse to vote for one sleazy moral degenerate that I'll vote for the other?
I'm very impressed with the pro life/pro traditional values Republican Party Platform, which by the way your guy Donald Trump hasn't pledged to legislate by. Other than not voting for Trump, I'll most likely vote Republican at the local, county and state levels, depending on if the candidate embraces those values on the platform.
Just out of curiosity Grosnick, did you give Donald Trump's very special guest speaker Peter Thiel a standing ovation like the rest of the Trump supporters did at the end of his speech?
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Recriminalized!-Part-4&p=4769013#post4769013
So aCW, were you as equally turned off when Cruz gave Gays & Lesbians props in his speech? I thought you would not vote for someone that does not want to criminalize aberrant behavior? Just wondering your thoughts on Cruz's mention of homosexuality.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That's true enough, I can't argue that.
Yes. He's the only one I would've voted for out of the entire GOP field.
Do you realize what you did there? You took issue with the piece from WaPo because it was from a "liberal rag," yet you had no problem posting the link to what you surely must recognize as a "liberal rag," The New Republic, because it said (not surprisingly, considering it's a "liberal rag" discussing a GOP candidate) what you wanted to say about Kasich.
drbrumley
Well-known member
:think: Inquiring minds want to know :think:
One reason I said in another post AcW's head was exploding,,,,
drbrumley
Well-known member
At a convention farewell event in Cleveland with running mate Mike Pence, Trump said he doesn’t want Cruz’s endorsement, blamed the Texas senator for making their wives fair political game, and said he had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory he promoted in the primary, that Cruz’s father had been seen with President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Trump Goes On War Path Against Ted Cruz: "I Don't Want His Endorsement"
By Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
July 23, 2016
Trump Goes On War Path Against Ted Cruz: "I Don't Want His Endorsement"
By Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
July 23, 2016
No Anna, I actually read the WaPo article in it's entirety and I found that the bias overshadowed the entire article. I did not say the article was entirely false what I did say was that there was enough points that had no merit that I saw no credibility in what the writer was attempting to convey. I would say most if not all publications show media bias, I assess them by degree, the WaPo, NYT, and LAT are some of the absolute worst and yes, I consider them liberal rags...their agenda is showing. Conversely the New Republic article was interesting to me because the NR is a liberal publication that went to the trouble of pointing out Kasich's major Fault when he wasn't even a contender I thought the writer did a good job of making the case but, it was not the first time I had read about the man, even his stage presence was that of elite entitlement, for me it was a real turn off, my mom loved him too, I personally thought he was way to self absorbed, and yes worse than Trump in many ways...he reminded me of Al Gore...He knows what is best for us and we are too stupid to see it :chuckle: Heck if you want a conservative publication that says essentially the same thing here is an old one I read.
http://freebeacon.com/columns/what-does-john-kasich-think-hes-doing/
Pretty much the reason many will vote for him...the felon Hillary is a far worse alternative.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Whether or not you read it in its entirety has nothing to do with what I said.
The point I was making was that "liberal rags" can be correct but you'll only acknowledge they're correct if you agree, and therefore convenient for you to accept their legitimacy. Otherwise, they're just biased "liberal rags" to you.
That was your assertion, although you didn't provide any support for it.
Such as.... ?
Nothing new, I think we all do the same.
Unless, of course, you agree with them. Had they been the source for the Kasich piece I'm sure you would then have found them useful?
(A "liberal rag")
Do you really think The New Republic would do anything else but point out any GOP candidate's major fault?
You should listen to your mom...
Your personal opinion isn't worth any more than mine, so if I say Trump is the most malignantly narcissistic, self-absorbed, elitist, uninformed, unauthentic candidate we saw in this election, then of course we're at an impasse. Not surprising.
That is true because Donald trump is an ego elitist, out to impress himself. Hillary is a pawn to the top financial elitists who want a president who will make them rich. and do not give a wick if she has all the gays running nude and married to goats, all the guns tossed in the sea, all the illegal immigrates granted citizenship.
The old, and new big money behind Hillary Clinton does not care about social issues, they do not give a wick about domestic affairs, as they are citizens of the world and can live anywhere. Hillary will not protect jobs, but will pass out the dole, and increase taxes. These taxes affect most Americans, and only the very rich can afford to give away money to wasteful programs, as they do not care about monetary loss, as long as monitory gain is much larger.
The Clinton's' have around 80-90 million dollars and they are at the bottom ring if the super wealthy who are tax immune.
According to what, exactly?
Or is that just another made up phantom those as yourself have spawned out of prejudice?
Trump is a populist.
and you are a dope.According to what, exactly?
Or is that just another made up phantom those as yourself have spawned out of prejudice?
Trump is a populist.