Whoa...this guy should be a poster here.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yeah?

 

And Lindsey F'ing Graham endorsed Cruz. Now, for you, and TTYT, and everybody else that is supposedly about "the conservative ideal" or "small government"...defend Lindsey Graham. He is literally the RINO that every single person in the TEA party hates. I know.

 

You think the TEA party isn't behind Trump's success? You think that Lindsey Graham's endorsement of Cruz didn't close the deal for a ton of TEA partiers support for Trump? You think making fun of McCain didn't have TEA partiers laughing? You think Mitt Romney attacking Trump didn't galvanize the TEA party behind Trump? I getting the exact opposite of what you intend was the province of progressives...but Romney proved that a supposedly "principled conservative" can bake himself a stupid cake as well.

 

Cognitive Dissonance. You're telling me about small government and at the same time, lining up onside with Lindsey Graham.

 

I/Trump are not your problem. You are your problem.

First, if you want to tie me to Lindsey Graham, you had better source your work.

 

Second, any TEA Party individuals who support Trump don't reflect the TEA Party at it's inception. They're what it became once Sarah Palin co-opted it. Libertarians, by and large, want nothing to do with Trump.

 

Finally, who knew that all this time, while you've professed to be guided by libertarian/classically liberal moral philosophy what you were actually secretly clamoring for was a thin-skinned, hard left leaning, anti-Constitutional, proto-fascist. Odd, that.

Edited May 3, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Large]

A very PPP-like post from Charles Hurt:

David Brooks should stay in his little bourgeois strata

A few highlights that are

 

 

As I have said 100 times at least on this board: most of what the left argues begins with designs on self-aggrandizement, and ends with self-congratulation. Gay people, illegals, women, children(of course ), college students, (insert newly formed victim class here), none of them actually matter to these people. All are merely just the vehicle. They aren't the noun in the sentence, they are only the object. The position of noun is always reserved for the leftist, and why shouldn't it be, after all s/he is the smarterst person in the room because they are on the left, and therefore, they should make all decisions about all things.

 

 

 

I have to ne honest, what impressed me most if is your meager word court- unlike you.

What?

 

I see you are one of those people who are incapable of understanding the reality here. It's no surprise really, given that your brand of conservatism is: keeping things the same no matter how awful they are and/or "everybody should have to wear a suit and tie, because that's what I have to do. People that wear suits are serious people, and everybody who works buck naked from home is unserious".

 

Don't bother to deny it. You're not that far off from Brooks in many ways: you care infinitely more about the process, than the content.

 

Let's test this. I will put forward a simple premise, and then we will all watch you fail to conceive it properly, which will verify the above:

 

P1: How much more can Trump aggrandize himself beyond what he already has over the last 30 years? He cannot. He became a household name in the 80s. Thus, when you are at 100 on the famous/infamous scale, there's nowhere else to go. Contrast this with pissants on the left. They have no accomplishments. They have no real way to aggrandize themselves through personal achievement. So what do they do? They go for the anti-win, the humblebrag. The left tells us that they are more moral than the winners, and proceed to villify the winners for winning, because while the winners win, they care about children/gays/minorities instead, etc, complete with the 2 ton implication that anyone who doesn't agree with their idiot plans to solve problems, using their ill-defined problemn definitions, does not.

 

I mean: it's right there. It's obvious what levers are being pulled here and why. One could say that Trump represents the perfect anti-anti-win, which counters these phonies with an attack that they cannot defend. One could say that this is the only thing at work here, that supporting Trump is about supporting the anti-anti-win weapon's results, and that Trump is merely the delivery vehicle: Trump is only relevant in that the weapon needs someone who knows how to use it.

 

But, that one would be me: and you? You don't understand it. You're not a total idiot, so perhaps you'll understand it at some point. Probably not without consistent help from me. But, after all this is one of my functions here: Helping posters get past their psychological committments, and see truth.

 

Now, I am sure there's some indolent nonsense you have to say about me or Trump or bad language...but it all boils down to the same old thing: you want everybody to wear a suit, and be like you. Well, Mr. Romney, that doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for quite some time.

 

spoke to soon

Edited May 3, 2016 by B-Large

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yeah, chicken little, I read it. And I responded accordingly. Now answer my question: do you honestly believe that 95% of the black community is anti-Trump? If so, where does that data come from, and who is responsible for it?

 

Come on: oh keeper of the conservative flame. It's not a hard question, so what's so scary about giving a straight answer? Unless of course...you're a tiny bit skeptical of that number...which would not be new for you, since you are by nature, a skeptic.

My argument has never been that 95% of the black community is against Trump, it's irrelevant to my position.

 

My position is that Trump is poisonous, and will destroy small government ideals in the United States permanently.

[Magox]

I am 99% sure that I am not misremembering this. You may have a new found theory on polling but that doesn't take away the fact that you have indeed cited polling data in the past to help bolster your case.

 

Then you remember wrong.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok, the loquacious one, please explain how Trump will shrink the government, while building his wall, enlarging the military, maintaining the whole social safety net and waging a trade war?

Once again, one-button, you don't understand.

 

There's a reason you don't work in actual business, isn't there? Nah, you just tell us what we did wrong, and/or try to keep score.

 

IF you were actually responsible for a company you'd know that positioning is half the battle whenever you're making a deal. The best people make the best deals LONG before they sit down at the conference table. The very few execs who have actually read Sun Tzu, and don't merely put his book in a prominent place behind their desk, know that that battle is won before the fight.

 

You really think hanging on Trump's every word is indicative...of anything? He's positioning...not posturing...and there's a huge difference.

 

Any discussion of illegal immigration with Mexico BEGINS with a wall. They can't have a negotiation without the wall, now. Right? Wrong! Taking the wall off the table, would require a HUGE concession from the Mexican government, who are all scared to death of the drug cartels. The only question is, are they more scared of losing to Trump, and not only the wall, but them actually paying for it? I know Trump understands all of this, and the answer is: no, they are more scared of the drug cartels.

 

Building a wall hurts the cartels, big time. So...Trump is actually giving the Mexican government a way out == blame him for "forcing" them, AND, doing something to help them with their problem. The cartels only win if the money keeps flowing. Stop their $, stop them. This is ostensibly why we've been fighting a "War on Drugs" in South America, that clowns like you have been supporting since the 80s, is it not? Rather than running around in the jungle, we create a defense in depth and focus our energy where it costs us the least, and the drug cartels the most: losing finished product that has already been shipped, at the border, is 10x more expensive than losing in the jungle.

 

OTOH, if Trump concedes the wall, the Mexicans are going to have a pony up a ton of draft picks in return, or, pay tariffs. Nobody wants this option, because it essentially means us colonizing Mexico, in all but name.

 

Either way, the Mexican government is now in a publicly weak position, thanks to the "build the wall" positioning, and Trump's position is now strong, REGARDLESS of where it goes from there. But, Trump can give them the thing they need the most: relief from the cartels IN PRIVATE. How it happens is secondary.

 

See?

 

It's not that hard for those of us who actually do real deals, not electronic transactions, for a living.

First, if you want to tie me to Lindsey Graham, you had better source your work.

 

Second, any TEA Party individuals who support Trump don't reflect the TEA Party at it's inception. They're what it became once Sarah Palin co-opted it. Libertarians, by and large, want nothing to do with Trump.

 

Finally, who knew that all this time, while you've professed to be guided by libertarian/classically liberal moral philosophy what you were actually secretly clamoring for was a thin-skinned, hard left leaning, anti-Constitutional, proto-fascist. Odd, that.

I'm merely seeing the inevitable conclusion before you are.

 

Nothing odd about that.

 

You and others keep trying to attach ideology to Trump. Now that is odd. Trump is about winning. Libertarianism is about preventing the government from punishing winners, on the false pretense that the winners must have done something bad to win. I don't see the conflict. Neither would you...if you were more concerned with results, and less concerned with this name or that title.

 

You think Trump is a proto-fascist? Well, contrast that with the actual fascist, Hillary Clinton.

 

What's odd is: here we have a guy who is scaring the hell out of then entire establishment/and more importantly the 4th branch of government(EPA, IRS, etc). He's telling everyone that nobody's job is safe, not even the Queen of England, because he will toss her out of NATO without a second thought if she doesn't pay up.

 

This is the epitome of libertarian, equity first, merit-only thinking...and you can't stomach it?

My argument has never been that 95% of the black community is against Trump, it's irrelevant to my position.

 

My position is that Trump is poisonous, and will destroy small government ideals in the United States permanently.

Your position that Trump is poisonous is BASED ON the ridiculous 95% stat and all the rest like it!

 

[IDBillzFan]

Yeah?

 

And Lindsey F'ing Graham endorsed Cruz. Now, for you, and TTYT, and everybody else that is supposedly about "the conservative ideal" or "small government"...defend Lindsey Graham.

 

I generally don't respond to your posts because you're in dire need of an editor, but I got this far, and so I will say this: there is no world where I defend Lindsey Graham. Putting forth the false equivalent of "I don't support Trump means I defend Lindsey Graham" is most absolutely on par with "I don't support Obamacare so I want children to starve."

 

Funny how Trump fans argue like liberals, right?

 

Do I suggest you are an establishment nutbag simply because John Boehner and Peter King...two of the biggest RINOs around...consider Ted Cruz to be worse than Satan?

 

Trump is no more a conservative than Nancy Pelosi. His policies literally have nothing to do with conservative values and policies. Simply stating "I'm the most conservative person I know" is Trumps way of explaining that he doesn't waste water because he literally has no idea what it means to say you're a conservative.

 

Here are a few emoticons to make you feel comfortable with my post.

[OCinBuffalo]

I am 99% sure that I am not misremembering this. You may have a new found theory on polling but that doesn't take away the fact that you have indeed cited polling data in the past to help bolster your case.

 

There is nothing new about me complaining about the inaccuracy of polls, and the rampant misuses of scientific data modeling/analytics in general. Have you ever seen my posts about Global Warming? Have you seen me on the football board either explaining analytics(now that was a long post) in sports, or debunking nonsense "analysis"?

 

That said, I try to use RELIABLE data as often as I can. If I don't, then I write posts so you can tell I'm just running my mouth, and not speaking from authority/fact.

 

I generally don't respond to your posts because you're in dire need of an editor, but I got this far, and so I will say this: there is no world where I defend Lindsey Graham. Putting forth the false equivalent of "I don't support Trump means I defend Lindsey Graham" is most absolutely on par with "I don't support Obamacare so I want children to starve."

 

Funny how Trump fans argue like liberals, right?

 

Do I suggest you are an establishment nutbag simply because John Boehner and Peter King...two of the biggest RINOs around...consider Ted Cruz to be worse than Satan?

 

Trump is no more a conservative than Nancy Pelosi. His policies literally have nothing to do with conservative values and policies. Simply stating "I'm the most conservative person I know" is Trumps way of explaining that he doesn't waste water because he literally has no idea what it means to say you're a conservative.

 

Here are a few emoticons to make you feel comfortable with my post.

Then you missed the F'ing point.

 

You invoked the TEA party. I reminded you that Cruz comes with the Lindsey Graham attachment. Graham has spoken out against the TEA party more than MSNBC.

 

This has nothing to do with Cruz or Trump. This has to do with recognizing that the instant Graham did what he did...told us what this was all about.

 

Forget this guy or that. Think about what's happening here. Why on God's green earth would Lindsey Graham come out for Ted Cruz, a TEA party candidate?

 

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

 

Was it because of your concerns that the "conservative ideal" needs protecting, from Donald Trump? By Lindsey Graham? Of course it wasn't. Spare me this BS. All these people are doing is spreading FUD about Trump because now their power/assess are on the line, and they are trying to line up as many stooges as they can to help them spread.

 

Now do you see how ridiculous telling us that Donald Trump...threatens the TEA party/libertarianism sounds?

Edited May 3, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

Utterly predictable response from a Trump supporter.

 

A lot of inferring into the empty content of his grandstanding speeches over the last six months.

 

I wonder when was the last time that happened to a swooning voting base?

[meazza]

Utterly predictable response from a Trump supporter.

 

A lot of inferring into the empty content of his grandstanding speeches over the last six months.

 

I wonder when was the last time that happened to a swooning voting base?

 

Yesterday during Cruz's "debate" with a Trump supporter, the guy asked Cruz how he would do a better job protecting his 2nd amendment right.

 

Really? Out of all the things you're going to rag Cruz on, there is a million other possible things but he decides to focus on the 2nd amendment

 

This is what we deserve. Humanity has failed. Time to pack up the experiment and maybe give it a shot with another species.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm merely seeing the inevitable conclusion before you are.

 

Nothing odd about that.

 

 

What inevitable conclusion? That Trump is going to win the GOP nomination? Of course he is. Only a blind fool would think otherwise. He's going to win because Cruz is completely unpalatable to the establishment, and those currently in charge of the Party know that they likely won't be in charge of their party in four years, so they are trying desperately to keep the GOP from fracturing in there here and now, future be damned, because that's someone else's problem.

 

You aren't out in front here. In fact, if you're just now coming around, you're closer to last.

 

 

 

You and others keep trying to attach ideology to Trump. Now that is odd. Trump is about winning.

No, he isn't. Trump is about promoting a brand. He's a huckster, and when he's not pimping failed businesses, sometimes fraudulently, he has, historically, very vocally promoted a liberal ideology: single payer health care, a graduated income tax, increased corporate taxes, high tariffs for the purpose of propping up unions, gross abuse of eminent domain which abuses property rights, criminalizing free speech by "opening up those libel laws" ... the list goes on and on.

 

Trump, because he's a self-important idiot who can't shut his damn mouth, has told us exactly who he is.

 

 

 

Libertarianism is about preventing the government from punishing winners, on the false pretense that the winners must have done something bad to win. I don't see the conflict. Neither would you...if you were more concerned with results, and less concerned with this name or that title.

Libertarianism is a moral philosophy which holds individual liberty as the highest standard of value.

 

It is the antithesis of damaging property rights, restricting free speech, protectionism, promotion of group rights (unionization) to the detriment of individual rights (free association), confiscatory taxes on individuals and business which punish innovation, drive and success.

 

That is what I am concerned with. You, not so much. Stop calling yourself a libertarian.

 

 

 

You think Trump is a proto-fascist? Well, contrast that with the actual fascist, Hillary Clinton.

The only measurable difference between the two is Hilary's criminal background. Policy wise, other than an empty promise of a wall, they are almost completely in lock step. The key point being, however, that if Hillary wins, we get to hang the inevitable economic downturn on liberals. If Trump wins, liberals get to hang it on Trump, all while not being wrong that his proposed economic plan will actually make things worse.

 

 

 

What's odd is: here we have a guy who is scaring the hell out of then entire establishment/and more importantly the 4th branch of government(EPA, IRS, etc). He's telling everyone that nobody's job is safe, not even the Queen of England, because he will toss her out of NATO without a second thought if she doesn't pay up.

 

This is the epitome of libertarian, equity first, merit-only thinking...and you can't stomach it?

No, that's the short sighted thinking of a fool who somehow seems to believe that America exists as an island unto it self, and is somehow immune from both cause and effect and in inevitable outcomes of globalism. It's the short sighted foolishness of someone who believes giving the world the finger is more meritorious than principled moral action.

 

 

 

Your position that Trump is poisonous is BASED ON the ridiculous 95% stat and all the rest like it!

Go on, tell me more about how you know more about what I'm basing my positions on than I do.

 

Jack ass.

[Tiberius]

My argument has never been that 95% of the black community is against Trump, it's irrelevant to my position.

 

My position is that Trump is poisonous, and will destroy small government ideals in the United States permanently.

As if they have not been--rightfully--deposited in the trash can of history already. You are as delusional as a Trumpester

[Deranged Rhino]

As if they have not been--rightfully--deposited in the trash can of history already. You are as delusional as a Trumpester

 

And you are a lying asshat, so why would anyone take anything you say seriously ever?

 

Oh, right. They don't. Because you're a lying asshat.

[OCinBuffalo]

Utterly predictable response from a Trump supporter.

 

A lot of inferring into the empty content of his grandstanding speeches over the last six months.

 

I wonder when was the last time that happened to a swooning voting base?

So predictable you can't find any fault with it.

 

Which inference is wrong? Why? Show your work.

 

I'd hardly call me swooning. I'm pissed. I'm pissed about the IRS. I'm pissed about Benghazi. I want the 4th branch of government destroyed, and then rebuilt properly.

 

I'm pissed about the entire education system, but doubly pissed off at colleges, both with the safe space thing and collecting $100k/yr in tuition while reducing the academic rigor, handing out nothing less than a 3.5 to anyone who is willing to pay the $100k, and requiring coursework that has no value to me as an employer whatsoever. All, while giving themselves a 400% raise over the last 10 years, and, having the temerity and arrogance to talk about the sins 1% at the same time.

 

I'm pissed that we are too PC to be effective...at anything. Like teaching reading: I'm pissed when I find out this past weekend that a kid that got drafted couldn't read when he got to college.

 

Thus, it's time for some good old fashioned punishment. We need a person who only gets stronger, the more they scream. So far, that is exactly what Trump is. The more the guilty scream, the stronger he gets.

 

I think you're going to find that this cuts across all demographics. In fact, this election is going to prove once and for all that demographics '= monolithic voting blocks.

[GG]

So predictable you can't find any fault with it.

 

Which inference is wrong? Why? Show your work.

 

I'd hardly call me swooning. I'm pissed. I'm pissed about the IRS. I'm pissed about Benghazi. I want the 4th branch of government destroyed, and then rebuilt properly.

 

I'm pissed about the entire education system, but doubly pissed off at colleges, both with the safe space thing and collecting $100k/yr in tuition while reducing the academic rigor, handing out nothing less than a 3.5 to anyone who is willing to pay the $100k, and requiring coursework that has no value to me as an employer whatsoever. All, while giving themselves a 400% raise over the last 10 years, and, having the temerity and arrogance to talk about the sins 1% at the same time.

 

I'm pissed that we are too PC to be effective...at anything. Like teaching reading: I'm pissed when I find out this past weekend that a kid that got drafted couldn't read when he got to college.

 

Thus, it's time for some good old fashioned punishment. We need a person who only gets stronger, the more they scream. So far, that is exactly what Trump is. The more the guilty scream, the stronger he gets.

 

I think you're going to find that this cuts across all demographics. In fact, this election is going to prove once and for all that demographics '= monolithic voting blocks.

 

There's plenty of evidence of me finding fault with it. These pages, including this thread have clearly opined why Trump is a class A huckster who's tapping into a gullible crowd. He's not unique. There have been many Trumps in American history. But lucky for him, and unlucky for the country, this version of Trump can actually sniff the top job.

 

Note how in your zeal to spout something that Trump never said, you ignored the rest of the issue of how Trump plans to keep up all of his spending plans, cut taxes, wage a trade war AND grow the economy?

 

Or maybe he really doesn't quite know what he's talking about?

[Tiberius]

 

Libertarianism is a moral philosophy which holds individual liberty as the highest standard of value.

 

It is the antithesis of damaging property rights, restricting free speech, protectionism, promotion of group rights (unionization) to the detriment of individual rights (free association), confiscatory taxes on individuals and business which punish innovation, drive and success.

 

This is so wacky. Yes, sounds great, but its the epitome of something that looks good on paper until reality gets in the way. You would have to care more for your little philosophy than the actual well being of society. Because unleashing a libertarian regime on the nation would literally mean death for many, monopoly in business--you are against anti-trust laws, right?--and a wide range of other problems. We have already talked about pollution and I've found your liberatraian solution horrible and wrong. You seem like a social dawrwinst actually

[IDBillzFan]

Now do you see how ridiculous telling us that Donald Trump...threatens the TEA party/libertarianism sounds?

 

I genuinely don't have the time today to refute all the crazy stuff you're posting. What I do have...or at least seem to have..is time to wait.

 

There is little I can do to stop Trump. This is little I can to do stop the minds of the people who support Trump. If you're not smart enough to realize he's not a conservative, you won't be smart enough to have your mind changed.

 

I can only bide my time, wait for his nomination, and then watch one of two things happen: he gets embarrassed by Clinton in the general, in which case you'll have some Trumpwhiny excuse (like, oh, those pesky #neverTrump people) or watch him get elected president, in which case I'll need a bigger tub of popcorn because if you thought Obama reneged on his campaign promises, wait until you get into year three of the Trump presidency and find out he had no desire or ability to build any kind of wall of any kind other than maybe a higher fence around the WH...but had plenty of time to make Obamacare single payer.

 

Maybe he'll get around to releasing documents on how Ted Cruz's father killed Kennedy.

 

You're being conned. Convince yourself otherwise. But you're being conned. The Hot Pocket mind is finally becoming the majority.

[OCinBuffalo]

What inevitable conclusion? That Trump is going to win the GOP nomination?

Nope. Thus, you've now proven you don't see it. Congratulations.

 

Of course he is. Only a blind fool would think otherwise. He's going to win because Cruz is completely unpalatable to the establishment, and those currently in charge of the Party know that they likely won't be in charge of their party in four years, so they are trying desperately to keep the GOP from fracturing in there here and now, future be damned, because that's someone else's problem.

 

You aren't out in front here. In fact, if you're just now coming around, you're closer to last.

Yeah, you have no idea at all.

 

No, he isn't. Trump is about promoting a brand. He's a huckster, and when he's not pimping failed businesses, sometimes fraudulently, he has, historically, very vocally promoted a liberal ideology: single payer health care, a graduated income tax, increased corporate taxes, high tariffs for the purpose of propping up unions, gross abuse of eminent domain which abuses property rights, criminalizing free speech by "opening up those libel laws" ... the list goes on and on.

 

Trump, because he's a self-important idiot who can't shut his damn mouth, has told us exactly who he is.

Funny, I said you keep trying to attach ideology to Trump, so, you move from that to trying to super glue policy positions to him. I don't know why you don't get that pretty much everything he has done so far is part of an overall strategy to confound, not only both parties, but especially the media. Do you honestly believe anything in your little screed here is an original thought about Trump? Do you believe any of it hasn't been said, over, and over and over, again, not only on TV, but in millions of $s of adds, nevermind 14 debates? To what end?

 

You're a management consultant, right? What do we do when the outcome of the business process is unexpected? Check the process. Trump understands the existing system/process. He's found a way to break it. In that, he's like a hacker. He's found an exploit, and, instead of fixing the bug, we have the media, pundits, the entire chattering class, and apparently, you, swearing up and down that there is no bug. That there's nothing wrong with the system, and that all their predictions are right....

 

....but then they are wrong. Now, Mr. Consultant, are you going to keep running the same process expecting a different result, or, are you finally going to the job correctly, and begin with taking an objective look at the process?

 

None of your predictions about Trump have come true so far. So, why should anyone, least of all you, believe in your next set of predictions?

 

Libertarianism is a moral philosophy which holds individual liberty as the highest standard of value.

 

It is the antithesis of damaging property rights, restricting free speech, protectionism, promotion of group rights (unionization) to the detriment of individual rights (free association), confiscatory taxes on individuals and business which punish innovation, drive and success.

 

That is what I am concerned with. You, not so much. Stop calling yourself a libertarian.

Funny, I literally tell you that you are more concerned with names/titles, than with outcomes and your response? "Stop calling yourself a libertarian"

 

It's like you just want to give me material to make you look stupid. But, that's not it. No. This is about 100% emotion for you, and that's why you reply with unintentional irony: you're simply not thinking. I gave a perfectly legit definition of libertarianism, just as forceful as yours, to which there is no reasonable objection, which is why you didn't knock mine, you just gave us another legit definition.

 

You aren't the police of who says what, especially not when they are saying the same thing you are. Don't tell me what to call myself, and at the same time, call yourself a libertarian. You're making the rest of us look...like what we aren't.

 

The only measurable difference between the two is Hilary's criminal background. Policy wise, other than an empty promise of a wall, they are almost completely in lock step. The key point being, however, that if Hillary wins, we get to hang the inevitable economic downturn on liberals. If Trump wins, liberals get to hang it on Trump, all while not being wrong that his proposed economic plan will actually make things worse.

Oh, I see, so the political outcome of the economic downturn matters more than the actual outcome. Meanwhile, you're making yet another prediction, based on what? As if you have any idea what Trump is literally going to do. And, you're batting .000 on predictions regarding Trump?

 

Just STFU already. This is just babble. As I said above you don't see what is happening here. This seals it.

 

No, that's the short sighted thinking of a fool who somehow seems to believe that America exists as an island unto it self, and is somehow immune from both cause and effect and in inevitable outcomes of globalism. It's the short sighted foolishness of someone who believes giving the world the finger is more meritorious than principled moral action.

You've never done case logic with a client, there, Mr. Consultant? Or have you? How above value proposition? What exactly is America's value to the rest of the world? What is our effect/cause on globalism. If we take a case approach, then one of those cases, must, not should, be: complete isolation. Now, everyone assumes America. Why did Obama have to get a cab from the airport in Saudi Arabia? For name calling(typical of the left): he called the Saudis "free-riders". See? Everybody assumes America will always come running when the whistle, and, when we don't we have to pick ourselves up from the airport.

 

I fail to see why we shouldn't put that situation to an end immediately, and, do so by presenting at least one case to the rest of the world that is "we're done". Nothing like scaring the schit of the rest of the pissants, that yeah, we are the superpower and yeah, you've been getting over. You don't reset relationships with a button. You reset them with firm, and accountable change in behavior, for both sides.

 

You're putting an = sign where it doesn't belong. Cut the crap. Trump demanding that we be treated with respect is not equal to a full isolation and a reimposition of Smoot Hawley.

Go on, tell me more about how you know more about what I'm basing my positions on than I do.

 

Jack ass.

The only jack ass here is you, because you know damn well you are basing your "poision" position on the "unfavorables" numbers, etc. You aren't fooling anyone, so put the F'ing shovel down. All you are doing is spreading FUD.

 

You, and the rest like you, haven't been right about Trump 1 time this election season. Not once.

 

Yet, now you claim to know exactly what he's going to do, what he thinks, what his values are, and therefore, how he's going to act, in all cases, and about all things?

 

Yeah, and I'm the Jack Ass?

 

You know nothing. Nothing at all, which is exactly how Trump wants it.

[GG]

 

 

You know nothing. Nothing at all, which is exactly how Trump wants it.

 

Finally you said something that's true about Trump's supporters.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Finally you said something that's true about Trump's supporters.

 

Amen and pass the cornbread.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I genuinely don't have the time today to refute all the crazy stuff you're posting. What I do have...or at least seem to have..is time to wait.

 

There is little I can do to stop Trump. This is little I can to do stop the minds of the people who support Trump. If you're not smart enough to realize he's not a conservative, you won't be smart enough to have your mind changed.

 

I can only bide my time, wait for his nomination, and then watch one of two things happen: he gets embarrassed by Clinton in the general, in which case you'll have some Trumpwhiny excuse (like, oh, those pesky #neverTrump people) or watch him get elected president, in which case I'll need a bigger tub of popcorn because if you thought Obama reneged on his campaign promises, wait until you get into year three of the Trump presidency and find out he had no desire or ability to build any kind of wall of any kind other than maybe a higher fence around the WH...but had plenty of time to make Obamacare single payer.

 

Maybe he'll get around to releasing documents on how Ted Cruz's father killed Kennedy.

 

You're being conned. Convince yourself otherwise. But you're being conned. The Hot Pocket mind is finally becoming the majority.

Oh yeah all this "crazy stuff"/you don't have time...

 

Spare me. That bug that's up your ass about JFK...it's there because Trump put it there. Now, you have a choice: you can keep crying about it, which is what Trump wants, or, you can take it out, and move on. But you're going to choose the former, every time, aren't you?

 

Yeah, and I am the one being conned? No. You. Are.

 

Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. 5 more times, because this helps with cross-brain cognition:

Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies.

Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies.

Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies.

Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies.

Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies.

 

How can Hillary paint Trump as a conservative, which means "hates children", when all you clowns keep screaming that he isn't? You are ruining ALL HER PLANS! Why did Trump intentionally pick a fight with Fox News, and especially a woman anchor(who has ties to Cruz btw), immediately out of the gate? Who is going to say that Fox News is the Trump Communications staff now? But, that charge can be leveled at MSNBC, especially when they literally hired a Hillary communcations staffer(but then got caught, so she only lasted 2 weeks).

 

Hmmmm. Starting to get it now? Or, are you still short on bandwidth? You keep fighting the good fight....(for Trump).

Edited May 3, 2016 by OCinBuffalo