Reply to Topic
Ugh. I hate that i deleted that post the second you quoted it.
Dunno, think i'm going to stop coming here.
Dunno, think i'm going to stop coming here.
Donald Trump for President?
If people are going to vote for Trump because they think he or his supporters are being "picked on" 
If Trump conducted himself like a gentleman I would agree with you, but hes the exact opposite of that. He and his supporters want to go on about how refreshingly politically incorrect he is, then he and they need to own the reactions from it. They arent the victims compared to the damage done to our countries morale and possibly system of government getting caught up in rabble rousing hysteria and drama. This is pithy compared to the unaccountable needless abuse hes brought forth.
If Trump conducted himself like a gentleman I would agree with you, but hes the exact opposite of that. He and his supporters want to go on about how refreshingly politically incorrect he is, then he and they need to own the reactions from it. They arent the victims compared to the damage done to our countries morale and possibly system of government getting caught up in rabble rousing hysteria and drama. This is pithy compared to the unaccountable needless abuse hes brought forth.In a democracy, any form of violence or vandalism should not be part of an individual's political expression.
You could argue that Trump is also undermining the democratic process in his own way (by saying beforehand that the rules of the election are rigged, etc.), but I was simply commenting on this incident in a vacuum here. His comments are food for a wholly different discussion.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I don't really care if he's a gentleman or if people think he's done damage to the morale of the country. As for now, he's still simply a politician who was elected as the presidential candidate for his party. Vandalizing stuff that relates to him is a form of intimidating the democratic process, in my opinion. I think people should always oppose that kind of destructive symbolism. Noone's Hollywood Star should of course be vandalized, but in this case, I think it's especially problematic. The implications are too dangerous. Many people will think I'm overreacting here, but I'm deadly serious about stuff like that.
In a democracy, any form of violence or vandalism should not be part of an individual's political expression.
You could argue that Trump is also undermining the democratic process in his own way (by saying beforehand that the rules of the election are rigged, etc.), but I was simply commenting on this incident in a vacuum here. His comments are food for a wholly different discussion.
In a democracy, any form of violence or vandalism should not be part of an individual's political expression.
You could argue that Trump is also undermining the democratic process in his own way (by saying beforehand that the rules of the election are rigged, etc.), but I was simply commenting on this incident in a vacuum here. His comments are food for a wholly different discussion.
Oh yeah in a vacuum its a weak way to express yourself, but Im just not surprised something like this happened to him since....well he brings it on himself. The most antagonistic candidate out there should have the shame to not whine.
Now vandalism to his star, thats a refection on him personally. It sure isnt on the level of burning the American flag, which I think may be more deserving of your observations of respect, and civility. There was no intimidation or threats made regarding this, there have even been people that posted pics of peeing on his star, so at least that will stop.
Never will I ever vote for someone that ignored U.S. Officials cries for help and allow them to be tortured and brutally murdered. And then lie about it. That's what you have to live with voting for a disgusting human like that.
I would pick a president that is brutally honest than lies to get a vote any day. And trust me, Benghazi isn't the only cover up.
I would pick a president that is brutally honest than lies to get a vote any day. And trust me, Benghazi isn't the only cover up.
Oh, he's already got a wall......the Trump Donor Wall.
https://secure.donaldjtrump.com/djts...s_Multiple_cpc
https://secure.donaldjtrump.com/djts...s_Multiple_cpc
I would pick a president that is brutally honest than lies to get a vote any day. And trust me, Benghazi isn't the only cover up.
Electoral college probably already knows who is going to be president.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If I was an American, stuff like that would almost make me want to vote for Trump. What a moronic way to express your political opinion.
I could very well see that, similar to Brexit
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It's a big reason his support is so high. Michael Moore-who thinks Trump will win- said this will be a big F*ck you election.
I could very well see that, similar to Brexit
I could very well see that, similar to Brexit
-wince!-
http://m.timesofindia.com/united-sta...w/55097374.cms
Trump borrows Indian prime minister's popular election slogan to woo the Indians settled in America.
Trump borrows Indian prime minister's popular election slogan to woo the Indians settled in America.
Just got a robocall about a Trump rally on my cell phone. Didn't sign up for anything, so I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Thats nothing. The rabble rousers works may come into effect if/when he loses...
Some Trump voters warn of revolution if Clinton wins
Beneath Cheers at Donald Trump’s Rallies, Dark Fears Take Hold
COLORADO SPRINGS — Big crowds still mob Donald J. Trump when he comes to town, with fans waiting in long lines to attend his rallies, where they eagerly jeer his Democratic rival and holler happily at his message.
But beneath the cheering, a new emotion is taking hold among some Trump supporters as they grapple with reports predicting that he will lose the election: a dark fear about what will happen if their candidate is denied the White House. Some worry that they will be forgotten, along with their concerns and frustrations. Others believe the nation may be headed for violent conflict.
Jared Halbrook, 25, of Green Bay, Wis., said that if Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, which he worried would happen through a stolen election, it could lead to “another Revolutionary War.”
“People are going to march on the capitols,” said Mr. Halbrook, who works at a call center. “They’re going to do whatever needs to be done to get her out of office, because she does not belong there.”
“If push comes to shove,” he added, and Mrs. Clinton “has to go by any means necessary, it will be done.”
Interviews with more than 50 Trump supporters at campaign events in six states over the past week revealed a distinct change from the rollicking mood earlier this year, when Mr. Trump’s surprising primary successes and emergence as an unconventional Republican standard-bearer set off broad excitement. The crowds appeared on edge and quick to lash out.
And while some voters emphatically disputed polls suggesting that Mrs. Clinton would win, others offered an apocalyptic vision of what life would be like if she did.
“It’s not what I’m going to do, but I’m scared that the country is going to go into a riot,” said Roger Pillath, 75, a retired teacher from Coleman, Wis. “I’ve never seen the country so divided, just black and white — there’s no compromise whatsoever. The Clinton campaign says together we are stronger, but there’s no together. The country has never been so divided. I’m looking at revolution right now.”
Julie Olson, a rancher who showed up for a Trump rally in Colorado Springs, said that she and her husband had been through rough economic times in recent years, and that a Trump loss would only worsen their burdens.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...iMQ?li=BBnb7Kz
Some Trump voters warn of revolution if Clinton wins
Beneath Cheers at Donald Trump’s Rallies, Dark Fears Take Hold
COLORADO SPRINGS — Big crowds still mob Donald J. Trump when he comes to town, with fans waiting in long lines to attend his rallies, where they eagerly jeer his Democratic rival and holler happily at his message.
But beneath the cheering, a new emotion is taking hold among some Trump supporters as they grapple with reports predicting that he will lose the election: a dark fear about what will happen if their candidate is denied the White House. Some worry that they will be forgotten, along with their concerns and frustrations. Others believe the nation may be headed for violent conflict.
Jared Halbrook, 25, of Green Bay, Wis., said that if Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, which he worried would happen through a stolen election, it could lead to “another Revolutionary War.”
“People are going to march on the capitols,” said Mr. Halbrook, who works at a call center. “They’re going to do whatever needs to be done to get her out of office, because she does not belong there.”
“If push comes to shove,” he added, and Mrs. Clinton “has to go by any means necessary, it will be done.”
Interviews with more than 50 Trump supporters at campaign events in six states over the past week revealed a distinct change from the rollicking mood earlier this year, when Mr. Trump’s surprising primary successes and emergence as an unconventional Republican standard-bearer set off broad excitement. The crowds appeared on edge and quick to lash out.
And while some voters emphatically disputed polls suggesting that Mrs. Clinton would win, others offered an apocalyptic vision of what life would be like if she did.
“It’s not what I’m going to do, but I’m scared that the country is going to go into a riot,” said Roger Pillath, 75, a retired teacher from Coleman, Wis. “I’ve never seen the country so divided, just black and white — there’s no compromise whatsoever. The Clinton campaign says together we are stronger, but there’s no together. The country has never been so divided. I’m looking at revolution right now.”
Julie Olson, a rancher who showed up for a Trump rally in Colorado Springs, said that she and her husband had been through rough economic times in recent years, and that a Trump loss would only worsen their burdens.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...iMQ?li=BBnb7Kz
Crap like this ("rigged", talks of "revolution") are why he can't just lose, but needs to lose badly. This kind of stuff might gain traction if he loses by 4, but if he gets creamed by 10+ (which is looking very plausible), it's going to look downright silly.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Inside the Trump Bunker, With 12 Days to Go
That's the name of a MSN news story published today. I'm not sure who coined the phrase Trump Bunker, but right or wrong, it's meaning is clear.
That's the name of a MSN news story published today. I'm not sure who coined the phrase Trump Bunker, but right or wrong, it's meaning is clear.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Inside the Trump Bunker, With 12 Days to Go
That's the name of a MSN news story published today. I'm not sure who coined the phrase Trump Bunker, but right or wrong, it's meaning is clear.
That's the name of a MSN news story published today. I'm not sure who coined the phrase Trump Bunker, but right or wrong, it's meaning is clear.
Trump's gonna replace Hitler in Downfall?
X
Favorite Movies
Donald Trump believes the United States can get $1 trillion in new roads — for free
Inside two weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump has finally released a plan to pump $1 trillion of new infrastructure spending into the U.S. economy.
He says it won't cost taxpayers a dime.
Trump's economic advisers have embraced a modified version of a theory some liberal economists have been pushing for years: that at a time of very low interest rates, increased federal spending on roads and bridges would actually pay for itself.
The idea is straightforward enough. Trump would push Congress to authorize $137 billion in tax credits for construction companies looking to build new toll roads, toll bridges or any other sort of infrastructure project that has a revenue stream attached to it. (The revenue is critical, in that it generates a return to the private builder of the project.)
The advisers behind the plan, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, calculate that the tax credits would leverage $167 billion in investment by the companies that receive them, who would in turn borrow money on the private market to finance up to $1 trillion in total spending. That spending, then, would create jobs, with wages that would be taxed, and corporate profits, which also would be taxed.
Ross and Navarro calculate the added tax revenue would be enough to pay for the total cost of the tax credits, which means the overall cost to the government would be . . . nothing. They contrast that to Democrat Hillary Clinton's infrastructure plan, which is funded in part by business tax increases.
They also acknowledge that their argument, in a way, mirrors that of liberal economists, such as Brad DeLong and Larry Summers, who have argued for years that with interest rates near zero, increased infrastructure spending could generate enough economic activity to pay for itself.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...YGT?li=BBnb7Kz
See, not all MSN stuff is anti-Trump.
Inside two weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump has finally released a plan to pump $1 trillion of new infrastructure spending into the U.S. economy.
He says it won't cost taxpayers a dime.
Trump's economic advisers have embraced a modified version of a theory some liberal economists have been pushing for years: that at a time of very low interest rates, increased federal spending on roads and bridges would actually pay for itself.
The idea is straightforward enough. Trump would push Congress to authorize $137 billion in tax credits for construction companies looking to build new toll roads, toll bridges or any other sort of infrastructure project that has a revenue stream attached to it. (The revenue is critical, in that it generates a return to the private builder of the project.)
The advisers behind the plan, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, calculate that the tax credits would leverage $167 billion in investment by the companies that receive them, who would in turn borrow money on the private market to finance up to $1 trillion in total spending. That spending, then, would create jobs, with wages that would be taxed, and corporate profits, which also would be taxed.
Ross and Navarro calculate the added tax revenue would be enough to pay for the total cost of the tax credits, which means the overall cost to the government would be . . . nothing. They contrast that to Democrat Hillary Clinton's infrastructure plan, which is funded in part by business tax increases.
They also acknowledge that their argument, in a way, mirrors that of liberal economists, such as Brad DeLong and Larry Summers, who have argued for years that with interest rates near zero, increased infrastructure spending could generate enough economic activity to pay for itself.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...YGT?li=BBnb7Kz
See, not all MSN stuff is anti-Trump.