Questions for the Trumplings

[Wells]

they dont think they can control / buy him like others, its why they are taking so long to unit behind him if they all do ever. Like on the left Hillary is supported by the elites where as Bernie isn't... and why Bernie wont get the nomination.

You don't think it has anything to do with his poor ability to capture a reliable majority of the GOP primary voters or his astronomically high unfavorability rating? The GOP leadership doesn't like him because they don't think he can be elected and he'll damage down ticket elections.

[Selastan]

Why yes it is as I said. You continuing to ignore the right wing media doesn't change that.

Even when the right wing does it, it is wrong. There should be a limit on what the Media can say while still calling themselves "news". I'm no expert, I don't know how it could happen or be enforced, but what I'm seeing now is just the worst kind of propaganda... However it gets done, it needs to get done. This isn't reporting, this is fear mongering and mind control. It's gotten to the state where you only have two options, you can get your news from the Media, who try everything they can to twist their words to fit their agenda, (whatever side they are on) or you find a direct source. And how many people have first-hand accounts from Presidential debates and such? And who asks the questions at debates, who does the interviews, and who summarizes everything not flashy enough to broadcast live?

Wake up people. ISIS, China, the economy, climate change, immigration...all minor nuisances compared to the big threat from within. All the other candidates tend to ignore it, not even notice it, or even play the same game, using the fact that the Media controls all information and sucking up to them. Trump is literally the only candidate fighting for the freedom of information. He's the only one not putting on a fake face to please the media overlords, and is in fact calling them out for what they are. The crazy thing is he has a chance to actually win, a chance to do something about it. And you all can help him.

End the media tyranny. Vote Trump, and help spread facts, not propaganda. No matter what you disagree with him on, even if its everything else, I promise you the threat posed by the Media is worse than anything else right now.

[Alydael]

Sorry sunshine but if they want to campaign for him and do interviews about him they are simply a surrogate and are part of his campaign , as such posting their own words is more than fair game.

And I see you are still not addressing the emptiness of Trump promises and are again ..er..attacking Obama. With that devastating critique of yours his attempt at a third term is over.

With respect to the Constitution there is little thing called a lawsuit. If he is acting unconstitutionally then the SCOTUS when it reaches them will say so. But I am sure you know this. I could care less that there are people with different views of the Constitution, that hardly changes it's relevance. It's the social contract we as a society govern ourselves with. It's what allows people to utter political viewpoints and not be arrested. It allows people to go to the Church of their choice and not forced to follow a religion they do not support. It so fucking relevant that anyone saying it's not is ignorant, willfully or otherwise.

And I would recommend you read up on oral presentations to the SCOTUS before whining. Scalia was famous for it.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure as soon as you advocate supporting them as the enemy of my enemy is my friend. You know... like you did with Assad and Putin.

As for your little lawsuit argument. Someone has to bring a lawsuit for there to be a lawsuit.....

As for "families are a part of the campaign," every candidate uses family as a part of their campaign, yet no one attacks family (except for you and a few fringe elements). It is generally accepted in politics that families are off limits.

Again, I am not attacking Obama. I am just stating what happened. If it seems like an attack to you, maybe you do not like what Obama did. I have nothing against Obama, or Trump. I do not support the Dems or pubs- but I have nothing against any candidate.

As for relevance: If people have wildly different views of the same document, how could it possibly be relevant? It is, obviouslsy, relevant to some but not others (depending on your viewpoint).

As for the "oral presentation," I disagree with it on constitutional grounds, separation of powers and all that. See how relevant the constitution is?

[Pangean]

Even when the right wing does it, it is wrong.

Then you were wrong to claim it as a left wing thing then, no?

There should be a limit on what the Media can say while still calling themselves "news". I'm no expert, I don't know how it could happen or be enforced, but what I'm seeing now is just the worst kind of propaganda...

Uh no. That's called censorship and that is a no-no constitutionally.

Your real objection is that the media says things you don't agree with at least the ones you supposedly watch.

I suggest you expand your horizons. I see more view points in what is now the media than I ever saw growing up as a child with the four television stations. Your rant while amusing is barely concealed conspiracy nonsense and as such I could really care less.

[Orbitus]

SO.. the racism has always been the republicans..
Kind of like when.. Oh I don't know, some random republican called Lincoln freed the slaves?

Also, just looking at the debates at the moment, The absoulte violence thrown at trump supporters, left and right. The guy who tried to attack trump when he had a speech, and the media spinning it to be Trumps own fault.

and lastly. Muslim, is not. a. fucking. race.

Sorry but you apparently failed history class when the Southern Strategy happened. The Republicans of Lincoln were the Liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives.

I know Muslims aren't a race, but denying people based on religion is CLEARLY against the first amendment and wouldn't even be put up for a vote. Please go back to fucking high school and learn something before you try debating me.

[Pangean]

As for your little lawsuit argument. Someone has to bring a lawsuit for there to be a lawsuit.....

As for "families are a part of the campaign," every candidate uses family as a part of their campaign, yet no one attacks family (except for you and a few fringe elements). It is generally accepted in politics that families are off limits.

Again, I am not attacking Obama. I am just stating what happened. If it seems like an attack to you, maybe you do not like what Obama did. I have nothing against Obama, or Trump. I do not support the Dems or pubs- but I have nothing against any candidate.

As for relevance: If people have wildly different views of the same document, how could it possibly be relevant? It is, obviouslsy, relevant to some but not others (depending on your viewpoint).

As for the "oral presentation," I disagree with it on constitutional grounds, separation of powers and all that. See how relevant the constitution is?

And they have brought lawsuits. Do you not know this? Really?

Lol no one attacking family? Is Trump fringe? Or is it somehow different when he does it?

Again I simply posted their words. They are campaigning for him and as such if they want to defend Trump in front of the media then it's all fair game. If think I am being a meany you go ahead. It's cuts me to the bone and I don't know how I will sleep tonight knowing you think that.

Holy fuck you really think the Constitution is not relevant becasue people have different views of what it might mean? You really think this? I explained to you the relevance which you didn't address. The fact that you can utter this nonsense and have no fear a government censor reading it and deciding to imprison you for it demonstrates its relevance.

You disagree with it becasue of "separation of powers", which is a concept you really don't understand, from a document you are arguing has no relevance. /facepalm

[Ghostpanther]

You don't think it has anything to do with his poor ability to capture a reliable majority of the GOP primary voters or his astronomically high unfavorability rating? The GOP leadership doesn't like him because they don't think he can be elected and he'll damage down ticket elections.

All of that is beginning to change. And will continue for a while yet. Do not be too focused on the past polls and hang on to inaccurate hopes for the present. He has bought in new voters and yeah, the old GOP guard is not too happy. But they will get over it.

[Melkandor]

Ok so you do not know, anyone else actually have an answer?

Someone gives you an answer and you play ignorance. Why make the thread if you're not gonna listen to any answers except the one you want

[Orbitus]

so, how many years agi was that that one (or a few) crazy "conservatives" (i would actually call them radicals- i doubt if you looked into mc veighs life that there would be any signs of traditional conservatism) did that. Yet you routinely see mobs (hundreds to thousands) of lib dems commiting those acts (on the sign) this year alone- the only difference is that they call it a "protest." yeah.....

It is really transparent, no one with a post high school degree is falling for it.

move them goalposts!.

[Melkandor]

You don't think it has anything to do with his poor ability to capture a reliable majority of the GOP primary voters or his astronomically high unfavorability rating? The GOP leadership doesn't like him because they don't think he can be elected and he'll damage down ticket elections.

Citation please

[Orbitus]

1) better than hillary
2) probably will shake up things in Washington, honestly i'd be surprised if he makes it threw his first term. Even the GOP elites are afraid of him and that says something to me.

Do you know why they are afraid of him? Its because they know that if he does any of these policies that he wants to do, it will GUARANTEE that a Republican will NEVER get into the Whitehouse EVER AGAIN.

[Wells]

All of that is beginning to change. And will continue for a while yet. Do not be too focused on the past polls and hang on to inaccurate hopes for the present. He has bought in new voters and yeah, the old GOP guard is not too happy. But they will get over it.

That's all nice, but I'm not seeing much information to back it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Citation please

Citations for what? Him being seriously disliked? Primary results?

[Ghostpanther]

Do you know why they are afraid of him? Its because they know that if he does any of these policies that he wants to do, it will GUARANTEE that a Republican will NEVER get into the Whitehouse EVER AGAIN.

Lol! You wish. If that was true, then Carter should have made sure a Democrat would never get in office again. And I would say Bush helped with the "No Republican ever again in the White House." :P

[--Code--]

Whichever way it goes I'm just going to be sitting here laughing my ass off.

[Ghostpanther]

That's all nice, but I'm not seeing much information to back it up.

- - - Updated - - -



Citations for what? Him being seriously disliked? Primary results?

You are not looking in the right places. Many more GOP old guards are beginning to come out now and show support for Trump. More will soon. And a new Fox News Poll, which back in March showed his unfavorable ratings higher than Hillary's, now shows his better than hers. I know, you do not trust Fox News. :P But like I said, look harder.

[Wells]

You are not looking in the right places. Many more GOP old guards are beginning to come out now and show support for Trump. More will soon. And a new Fox News Poll, which back in March showed his unfavorable ratings higher than Hillary's, now shows his better than hers. I know, you do not trust Fox News. :P But like I said, look harder.

I'm well aware much of the GOP has decided to kiss the ring. That doesn't change anything I said. Nor are Clinton's unfavorability ratings relevant to my claim either.

And you'll need to do some citing of your own

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...cord-breaking/

[Selastan]

Then you were wrong to claim it as a left wing thing then, no?

It is mostly left wing. Its not that the right doesn't try it, but the left are the ones succeeding.

Uh no. That's called censorship and that is a no-no constitutionally.

Your real objection is that the media says things you don't agree with at least the ones you supposedly watch.

I suggest you expand your horizons. I see more view points in what is now the media than I ever saw growing up as a child with the four television stations. Your rant while amusing is barely concealed conspiracy nonsense and as such I could really care less.

My point is that it is blatant manipulation. Sure, its technically legal, but it's still wrong. Laws can be changed when it becomes apparent people are abusing and exploiting them.

I also am not seeing much of the diversity you are talking about. All my local stations are almost copy/paste when it comes to their stories. Every day, mention some cop shaming, Trump hating, the weather, and sports. Even if they were more diverse, no matter the viewpoint, unless it is dry and purely factual, it isn't reporting. A journalist has a duty to report the facts, not spread an agenda. It's really tempting, to call someone you like 'heroic' in a story, or speak with a tone disappointment when talking about a success of a disliked public figure, but you have put it aside. Let the people hear the facts and decide themselves.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

Thanks in advance to any who answer.

the more chaotic the world is, the better people like me seem to do. and im one in a million baby

[Cthulhu 2020]

Citations for what? Him being seriously disliked? Primary results?

I've never understood people that demand you source polling results that have existed for months. But of course we know Trumplings demand sources so they can wave it away as bias then later claim they "debunked" or "destroyed" it.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I'm just curious as to what Trump supporters actually expect him to do once he's in office. What agenda that you support do you expect him to push for? Mostly because this is someone who, once he became the presumptive nominee, was asked what his first 100 days in office would look like. He gave 5 stated goals for action items that would be accomplished within that time period. A week later he was already backtracking one of those and another is a non-starter. So I'm genuinely curious as to what you expect from him.