birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 turddog just doesn't know any Dems that haven't read the classics. After Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the exit polls will show plenty of working and middle class Dems voting for Trump. It will actually spark a bit of panic and debate in the mainstream media. Are these Dems trying to rig the general by promoting the "easier candidate to beat" in Trump? Or are they legitimate crossover voters? you were correct the first time…that's quite an about face. citizens united was all about this circumstance. trump won't win. won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 he'd never say it despite what the extreme right propaganda machine implies. over 7 years and never an utterance remotely related. but trump, well you knowand he's gaining support. we were at a diner this am after church with a republican couple. and they were stunned and saddened by the response of so much of the populace to trump. i guess we spoke too loudly as several tables looked daggers at us. scary times indeed. If course he wouldn't; he's an islamophile. But that's not really the point. You said you didn't know a single Dem that would get behind what Trump said. But I doubt you know many that would get behind a candidate who opposed gay marriage. But yall got behind Obama when he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 you were correct the first time…that's quite an about face. citizens united was all about this circumstance. trump won't win. won't happen. what about face? reading comprehension, fool. I said in the original post that many middle and working class Dems would vote for Trump. what's going to maybe save Hillary is that a bunch of cuckservatives will vote for her instead of Trump. I'm talking people like Magox, GG, TYTT, meazza. If the GOP actually had party discipline this time around (regardless of who is nominated), the GOP candidate would wipe the floor with Hillary. The way Huma wipes her snatch on Hillary's face. Unfortunately, the party discipline will be lacking on both ends. If Trump wins, cuckservatives will go Hillary. If Rubio wins, Trump voter will write-in Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 If course he wouldn't; he's an islamophile. But that's not really the point. You said you didn't know a single Dem that would get behind what Trump said. But I doubt you know many that would get behind a candidate who opposed gay marriage. But yall got behind Obama when he did. i know one that wouldn't disqualify a candidate based on gay marriage - that would be me. i certainly support equal treatment under the law: social securit benefits etc. it doesn't need to be called marriage. I agree. The establishment are basically upper middle and above professionals. I think the Dems are going to be shocked by how many people they previously considered to be enemies will be supporting Hillary. National Review will end up endorsing Hillary. George Will and Krauthammer will endorse Hillary on air on Fox News. That's the realignment. Wall St Journal will endorse Hillary. That obviously will only surprise Democrats. Hillary is as whored out to Wall St as any Republican. this about face. if you truly believe this he hasn't a prayer, pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 i call it disingenuous. Hardly. Disingenuous is, say, calling for stricter (and useless) gun laws after a shooting, but after a terrorist attack, not calling for stricter immigration laws. Or would that be "hypocritical"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 still don't see the about face. whatever, who cares. you're the type of person if you made a reading comprehension mistake wouldn't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 still don't see the about face. whatever, who cares. you're the type of person if you made a reading comprehension mistake wouldn't admit it. i've got multiple decades of proof of reading comprehension. they're called tests. they're actually quite challenging based on pass rates. i'm still taking and passing them. you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 lol, i could brag all day about being in Mensa, but nobody would respect it without proof. you're 0-for-1 in reading comprehension today. that's all i know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Hardly. Disingenuous is, say, calling for stricter (and useless) gun laws after a shooting, but after a terrorist attack, not calling for stricter immigration laws. Or would that be "hypocritical"? disingenuous would be conflating immigration law with mass murder which has occurred with alarming regularity among regular, seemingly unremarkable americans lol, i could brag all day about being in Mensa, but nobody would respect it without proof. you're 0-for-1 in reading comprehension today. that's all i know. you really are slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 disingenuous would be conflating immigration law with mass murder which has occurred with alarming regularity among regular, seemingly unremarkable americans It's the same idea: trying to prevent mass killings. Should we wait until the next Muslim extremist mass murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) It's the same idea: trying to prevent mass killings. Should we wait until the next Muslim extremist mass murder? should we wait until the next mentally ill patient with an semi automatic starts killing? it's not simple. nothing this serious ever is. but limiting access to military style weapons to potential crazies seems like common sense to me. but you go right ahead dumbing it all down. it's what you do. it's what trump is doing. it's what sells among a significant section of the population. but then again, so do cigarettes. Edited December 14, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 it's not simple. nothing this serious ever is. but limiting access to military style weapons to potential crazies seems like common sense to me. We already do that, why are you pretending otherwise. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 We already do that, why are you pretending otherwise. . http://www.gunbroker.com/Semi-Auto-Rifles/BI.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 should we wait until the next mentally ill patient with an semi automatic starts killing? it's not simple. nothing this serious ever is. but limiting access to military style weapons to potential crazies seems like common sense to me. but you go right ahead dumbing it all down. it's what you do. it's what trump is doing. it's what sells among a significant section of the population. but then again, so do cigarettes. Hey, why not stricter mental illness laws? As for gun control, read this from your fellow liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Hey, why not stricter mental illness laws? As for gun control, read this from your fellow liberals. stricter mental illness laws? you mean better treatment as a sworn, legitimate healer, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 stricter mental illness laws? you mean better treatment as a sworn, legitimate healer, correct?You don't get to leverage that, given your vocal support for collapsing the entire American healthcare delivery system, which clearly has a death toll, for political reasons. You, given that, shouldn't have a license to practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 so let's get back to the point. i've been told i'm misrepresenting the board by illuminating trump support here. yet, most recently there seems to be some impassioned predictions. so who here wants to go on record in predicting trump wins the r nomination? the presidency? i'll go on record predicting he won't win either. You don't get to leverage that, given your vocal support for collapsing the entire American healthcare delivery system, which clearly has a death toll, for political reasons.You, given that, shouldn't have a license to practice. yes, it's common knowledge that supporting universal healthcare risks license suspension….perhaps in texas. in virginia it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 We already do that, why are you pretending otherwise. . No, we limit military weapons. But military-style weapons...well, we still allow people to buy weapons that look scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 so let's get back to the point. i've been told i'm misrepresenting the board by illuminating trump support here. yet, most recently there seems to be some impassioned predictions. so who here wants to go on record in predicting trump wins the r nomination? the presidency? i'll go on record predicting he won't win either. yes, it's common knowledge that supporting universal healthcare risks license suspension….perhaps in texas. in virginia it's ok. Considering all the people that voted for Barry a 2nd time, no one would take that bet. The irony being, Shrill is a female Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Considering all the people that voted for Barry a 2nd time, no one would take that bet. The irony being, Shrill is a female Romney. but wait. what about the repug nomination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts