DescentBB

...so this is why I'm voting for Trump!

[youtube]bsHUPqhAGrk[/youtube]

Good rant. But it's not going to get through most of the Trumptard's think skulls however.

Still don't understand why the voters are angry I see. Listening to morons making youtube vids will only confuse you.

woodchip wrote:Still don't understand why the voters are angry I see. Listening to morons making youtube vids will only confuse you.

So if you're angry, it's OK to vote for a charlatan psychopath like Donald Trump...right?

Doesn't matter if he would be worse than Hillary.

I'm starting to think the real Trumptards are not his supporters, but all of the people FREAKING OUT!

Spidey wrote:I'm starting to think the real Trumptards are not his supporters, but all of the people FREAKING OUT!

People are freaking out because:

A: A vote for Trump is most likely a vote thrown away and will get Hillary elected (Trump is insanely unliked in the general voting public.)

and

B: If Trump were actually elected, he would be a disaster.

funny how the left was saying the same sort of things about Reagan when he was running.

woodchip wrote:funny how the left was saying the same sort of things about Reagan when he was running.

I don't think Reagan said these things:

[youtube]OkSRJSUY0vs[/youtube]

THAT is why Trump is a disaster. Women (which comprise something like 51% of the population) will have little choice but to vote for Hillary.

But having a husband who is a serial rapist and having his wife instrumental in covering it up, yeah...lets vote for Hillary as we all know how much she cares about womens rights.

Hilarious stretching of facts, above!

And just what is being stretched? Your covering for Hillary again?

Spidey wrote:I'm starting to think the real Trumptards are not his supporters, but all of the people FREAKING OUT!

Let me ask you this Spidey. Do YOU want this man to be our president?

woodchip wrote:funny how the left was saying the same sort of things about Reagan when he was running.

no, they were not. I was there for those elections.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:funny how the left was saying the same sort of things about Reagan when he was running.

no, they were not. I was there for those elections.

I was there too, albeit older and perhaps wiser than you.

woodchip wrote: I was there too, albeit older and perhaps wiser than you.

then produce proof of your claims. I can neither recall nor locate any.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:I'm starting to think the real Trumptards are not his supporters, but all of the people FREAKING OUT!

Let me ask you this Spidey. Do YOU want this man to be our president?

No, but you won’t catch me foaming at the mouth either.

.....................................

"B" is definitely true…hell every party says that exact same thing during and after every election.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: I was there too, albeit older and perhaps wiser than you.

then produce proof of your claims. I can neither recall nor locate any.

Well here's one thing they said while he was in office"

“That’s what I want to be when I get old and feeble-minded,” my former boss said, “president.”

You can read more here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... hey-reall/

blog post? Seriously?

Since we're posting blogs, let's examine foreign polciy.Oh, here's a good plan. Talk to yourself.......
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... ser-220853

yeah, this is the guy we all want near the nuke controls.

then again, who can't see this as an adult, plausible platform?
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... sues/?_r=0

Getting ever more desperate eh slick.

I'm not, but I'll bet a lot of GOP elected officials are.

just read this gem:
During a phone call with CNBC, RNC Committee leader Hurly Haugland says "political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees".

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

"The rules haven't kept up," Haugland said. "The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That's just the way it is. I can't help it. Don't hate me because I love the rules."

Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he's proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer's convention.

They will try and bring Jeb back in.

callmeslick wrote:I'm not, but I'll bet a lot of GOP elected officials are.

I'll agree with you on that one. Which is why I hope Trump wins.

callmeslick wrote:They will try and bring Jeb back in.

He's a good candidate. He's one of my top picks. I find him rather likable and I think he would do a good job as president, on par with Hillary.

callmeslick wrote:just read this gem:
During a phone call with CNBC, RNC Committee leader Hurly Haugland says "political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees".

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

"The rules haven't kept up," Haugland said. "The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That's just the way it is. I can't help it. Don't hate me because I love the rules."

Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he's proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer's convention.

They will try and bring Jeb back in.

You know, my feeling is at this point the GOP officials could care less about the fall out if the delegates choose someone other than trump if he wins the popular vote in the primaries. The question is will they as didn't we have this scenario discussed only in the general election when Bush beat Algore with the popular vote? Wasn't the delegate count going to be used to make Algore the winner?

Woody, Huh? Not sure what you're talking about. The General doesn't have 'delegates' , but rather electors to the Electoral College. Works somewhat differently. Care to clarify or re-phrase, because I honestly don't quite get what you are suggesting?

So yeah, let's all vote for the guy who would pose a global security threat! Sounds like a plan!

I mean Christ, listen to this. I'm pretty sure even Koko the gorilla is more articulate.

callmeslick wrote:Woody, Huh? Not sure what you're talking about. The General doesn't have 'delegates' , but rather electors to the Electoral College. Works somewhat differently. Care to clarify or re-phrase, because I honestly don't quite get what you are suggesting?

Didn't gore have more electoral votes than Bush, but bush had more of the popular vote? And there was talk of making Gore Pres on the basis of that? But didn't happen because the powers that be understood pissing off the voters was not a good thing. Maybe I have this all screwed up.

According to the official records, Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush won the electoral vote. However, I am of the opinion that Al Gore also won the electoral vote but due to the use of butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County he was denied the presidency in one of the greatest failures of democracy in American history.