John Smith Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Trump draws vitriol because he spews it. The beneficiary is Cruz. People are so focused on the circus that is Trump that the toxic obnoxious Cruz has flown under the general publics radar Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 Cruz plays a more traditional closeted bigotry. Link to post Share on other sites
Fritz Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/secret-service-protects-donald-trump-at-ohio-campaign-rally/7242630 Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/secret-service-protects-donald-trump-at-ohio-campaign-rally/7242630"They have his name, probably ISIS related." Mr Trump said. Just straight up racist. Protesters need to stop. They are doing nothing but making Trump a martyr. Instead of reporting on the horrible things this man says (and the things the protesters what brought attention to). We get stories about how his rallies have been interested. Places like rust belt will decide this race. These protests are not helping win over that population. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 "They have his name, probably ISIS related." Mr Trump said. Just straight up racist.How is that racist? Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 You're right, how is that racist? But could you help a brother out and fill me in on how or why Trump came to the conclusion that the guy is probably ISIS related? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 How is that racist?:eyeroll Not gonna play that game. You are being wilfully ignorant. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 You're right, how is that racist? But could you help a brother out and fill me in on how or why Trump came to the conclusion that the guy is probably ISIS related?From what I've read, the guy is a seasoned activist and videos of him desecrating a flag have circulated. Apparently someone made a fake ISIS video months ago that utilized footage of him and the Trump campaign took it as the real deal. Poor investigative skills, but not necessarily racist. :eyeroll Not gonna play that game. You are being wilfully ignorant.No, the burden is upon you. How is it racist? Link to post Share on other sites
The Inside of Outside Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Not sure it is racist comment, but it is a stupid one. Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Protesters need to stop. They are doing nothing but making Trump a martyr. Instead of reporting on the horrible things this man says (and the things the protesters what brought attention to). We get stories about how his rallies have been interested. Places like rust belt will decide this race. These protests are not helping win over that population. I don't think we should discourage this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-chicago-protest-213728 Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 "They have his name, probably ISIS related." Mr Trump said. Just straight up racist. The name is Tommy DiMassimo. Why is assuming he's affiliated with ISIS (based on a fake video someone put together that suggests he's affiliated with ISIS) racist? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 From what I've read, the guy is a seasoned activist and videos of him desecrating a flag have circulated. Apparently someone made a fake ISIS video months ago that utilized footage of him and the Trump campaign took it as the real deal. Poor investigative skills, but not necessarily racist. No, the burden is upon you. How is it racist?You mean it is not ok to make a rash, incendiary statement, when do don't have all the facts? And then double down on those. Apparently it is ok for the GOP frontrunner. Figured it was OK if I did it. The truth or burden no longer matters. I said it was racist, it is. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 These days, it seems, all one needs to do is yell out, "racist!" and it is so. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I'm seeing a lot (on Twitter mostly) of comments reminding the electorate that presidential campaigns used to be violent and aggressive, supposedly making the point that the confrontations taking place at Trump rallies are nothing new. Just today I saw a retweet in this vein, using RFK's assassination as the example. I don't see the parallel. Yes, Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, and someone (I forget who) bashed another's brains in on the floor of Congress. But was there ever violence like this - where a candidate (whose vague policies condone violence) brazenly cheers on his supporters' use of violence against dissent? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 These days, it seems, all one needs to do is yell out, "racist!" and it is so. Is what I did any different from the myriad of other lies and claims that Trump has said. He has no respect for the truth or the American people. So why shouldn't I just claim he is racist any time he speaks? What I said seemed true on the surface, but it wasn't. But that doesn't matter. The truth is gone. It is just who says it the loudest and first. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 You're better than Trump though. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I'm seeing a lot (on Twitter mostly) of comments reminding the electorate that presidential campaigns used to be violent and aggressive, supposedly making the point that the confrontations taking place at Trump rallies are nothing new. Just today I saw a retweet in this vein, using RFK's assassination as the example. I don't see the parallel. Yes, Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, and someone (I forget who) bashed another's brains in on the floor of Congress. But was there ever violence like this - where a candidate (whose vague policies condone violence) brazenly cheers on his supporters' use of violence against dissent? George Wallace had some similar rallies back in '68. I don't remember him openingly supporting violence against protesters. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1968/10/30/page/8/article/wallace-clips-detriot-speech-short-as-violence-breaks-out Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Everyone of the candidates running for president lies. They tell us what they believe their voters want to hear. Whether it's true or not. Personally, I believe calling someone a racist is one helluva accusation and I wouldn't do it unless it were true. i think it gets thrown around too much. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I've always wondered whether we'd be better under a multi-party, parliamentary system. Right now, I think the clear answer to that is no. Hitler was able to use the split votes among many parties to work his way up to Chancellor in Germany. Right now, I think the two-party system is the best guarantor against a Trump presidency. As many people will be voting against Trump as will be voting for Clinton or Sanders when they cast their vote for the Democratic nominee. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 I've always wondered whether we'd be better under a multi-party, parliamentary system. Right now, I think the clear answer to that is no. Hitler was able to use the split votes among many parties to work his way up to Chancellor in Germany. Right now, I think the two-party system is the best guarantor against a Trump presidency. As many people will be voting against Trump as will be voting for Clinton or Sanders when they cast their vote for the Democratic nominee. I think if we had multiple parties, it would still be Clinton vs Trump right now with Sanders and Cruz nipping at their heels. Clinton DEM party, Trump psycho party, Sanders Socialist Party and Cruz as the traditional GOP figure. I do strongly support your use of the word "guarantor". That's classy. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This proves it. Trump is a monster. http://gawker.com/will-this-truly-disgusting-fact-about-donald-trump-be-t-1764981903 Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This proves it. Trump is a monster. http://gawker.com/will-this-truly-disgusting-fact-about-donald-trump-be-t-1764981903I would have pegged him as a raw meat eater, actually. The Christie slam yesterday is amazing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8daClN2TzJM Link to post Share on other sites
Chez Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Today is the only time I can recall that I voted against a candidate rather than for a candidate. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 The first time? You must never have voted before then. I mean there have been a whole shitload of elections where there have been some pretty lousy choices. (unless your local elections have been all great.) LouieBJust vote everyone and get this shit over with. We are all holding our breath in IL. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Crossover voters Dem to Rep is way up in many counties in OH. It will be interesting to see who those votes are for. Kasich may have a big night Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts