Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 10, 2016, 10:55:15 AM
-
I guess I don't have to post a link since it spread like wildfire over the MSM. What are you're thoughts?
I think Trump is a terrible speaker with a vocabulary problem. He often speaks in half sentences, which is okay if you're doing it on your TV show, but not so much if you're running for POTUS.
However, I think you have to be an idiot to take his comment as a "call for assassination". Trump is not so stupid as to suggest murder in a speech. Further, all the liberals ever talk about is the political behemoth that is the gun rights movement. Except in this case, where I guess they've forgotten their previous narrative. Not to mention the truckload of "Kill Wayne Lapierre" comments in Op-Eds everywhere.
I would say that this could help him in the polls, given that intelligent people would see both what he meant and what the MSM and liberal politicans are doing, but we don't seem to have intelligent or common sense voters.
-
Ok, I thought Trump's comment was hilarious... didn't offend me at all (and I hate Trump). Second Amendment advocates say stuff like that all the time.
But serious- he's not stupid enough to suggest murder in a speech? Of course he is!
“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"
-Trump
-
Trump is an oaf. Unfortunatly his opponent is a narcissist, liar, statist, criminal, thug, dipshit, uh, .... and so forth.
The idea that he was threatening violence must be inferred from his statement. The idea he was threatening Ms. Clinton requires a larger inference. But, unfortunatly neither inference is completly unreasonable. Thus my suggestion that Trump is an oaf.
But I prefer oafs to ..... *SIGH!* ..... Hillary.
-
If we don't want to have professional politicians in D.C., we need to understand that the non-professionals will not be perfect speakers and they will put their foot in the mouth occasionally. If we overreact to every little questionable thing they say, we are just training them to not say anything just like the professional liars we don't like.
-
How is it that someone, poorly stating that Hildabeast will stack the SCOTUS in such a way that the Second (and First for that matter) Amendments to the US Constitution will be crippled, if not destroyed, could be called a call for assassination or a joke about such? What kind of mental gymnastics are these?
-
It seems obvious he was making a joke about rooftop voting. But he, and others, are choosing to spin it as being about the political process, which is just laughable. He seems to have let himself be cowed, when he should have just said, "I was joking. It may not have been in good taste. At least I didn't get Americans killed, by exposing classified information, or by bungling up security for our diplomats."
His main attraction has been that he doesn't let the Left tell him what to say. And now this. =|
-
He not only made a dumb joke guns, he made a joke about HILLARY and guns. That's the definition of a thought crime in the minds of many liberal reporters. The brute must be verbally chastised and fingers must be wagged. It's what one does.
-
Ok, I thought Trump's comment was hilarious... didn't offend me at all (and I hate Trump). Second Amendment advocates say stuff like that all the time.
But serious- he's not stupid enough to suggest murder in a speech? Of course he is!
“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"
-Trump
Yeah, I'm with you.
I thought it was funny as well. And, by my way of thinking, that particular line isn't anything close to a specific threat.
It's merely the statement of the fact that second amendment supporters have a significantly higher ability to resesist legislation they don't like both legally and ... well, actually, if you're reading between the lines of the constitution, legally. :lol:
-
Wait. Let's assume he's serious.
He said that Hillary might stack SCOTUS in such a way as to allow obvious violations of the Bill of Rights to be "Legal" and fed.gov would enforce them. Specifically confiscation of firearms and speech/religion curtailments.
And if that happened the citizen's with firearms could use those firearms in the way the framers intended.
What's the problem, exactly?
-
I have no problem with what he said one way or another.
At the very worse he was saying MOLON LABE.
With all the success of the second amendment defenders in both legislation and the courts I just assumed the Democrats would never be dumb enough to attempt a gun grab. I have to say these last couple years have really shaken me out of that delusion.
-
One has to read the transcript of the entire comment to get the context. ;/ CNN posted it, surprisingly, because it was not what the exploding heads want you to believe.
-
And if that happened the citizen's with firearms could use those firearms in the way the framers intended.
The government, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
(more than a bit ironic, given how Mr. Lincoln violated the Constitution six ways from Sunday.)
What's the problem, exactly?
The Constitution has always been a problem for them.
-
You know, I can only wonder what this election would have been like if we had a candidate who was quite deliberate in his choice of words so that the media has a much harder time with their "SQUIRREL!!!" mission to distract from Clinton's scandals.
If only we'd have had a candidate like that in the primary...
-
You know, I can only wonder what this election would have been like if we had a candidate who was quite deliberate in his choice of words so that the media has a much harder time with their "SQUIRREL!!!" mission to distract from Clinton's scandals.
If only we'd have had a candidate like that in the primary...
Then they wouldn't be Trump and Jeb Bush's money might have amounted to something. Trump's media attention sucked up all the attention and showed how weak Jeb Bush was on critical issues. Would Jeb have made the "Act of Love" comments had he not been trying to fight against Trump's popularity?
You could say that Cruz might have been that guy, but I am not sure how he would have lasted if the media had been attacking him the whole time without Trump attracting all the commentary.
Everyone likes to say how great Reagan was, but a whole lot of people on the R side didn't like him before he was elected.
-
You could say that Cruz might have been that guy...
Not only could I say that, that's exactly what I'm saying. :P
-
Not only could I say that, that's exactly what I'm saying. :P
Cruz couldn't even handle Trump, who spent no money beating him to a pulp.
Hillary would have destroyed Cruz.
Between her money and the media Cruz wouldn't have stood a chance.
Not to mention the man is unlikable even compared to her and Trump, and that is saying something.
-
Cruz couldn't even handle Trump, who spent no money beating him to a pulp.
Hillary would have destroyed Cruz.
Between her money and the media Cruz wouldn't have stood a chance.
Not to mention the man is unlikable even compared to her and Trump, and that is saying something.
LOL. A $2 Billion donation in kind to Mr. Trump by the media was a bit of an advantage to overcome, YET, he came the closest of any candidate to succeed in doing so.
Instead we now have a candidate (like we always end up with) who had the media on his side during the primary and seems unable to deal with their sudden turn against him, now that he's attacking THEIR side.
-
Then they wouldn't be Trump and Jeb Bush's money might have amounted to something. Trump's media attention sucked up all the attention and showed how weak Jeb Bush was on critical issues. Would Jeb have made the "Act of Love" comments had he not been trying to fight against Trump's popularity?
You could say that Cruz might have been that guy, but I am not sure how he would have lasted if the media had been attacking him the whole time without Trump attracting all the commentary.
Everyone likes to say how great Reagan was, but a whole lot of people on the R side didn't like him before he was elected.
Yeah, "St. Reagan" isn't everything his uber-fans think he was. Although of course, out-capitalising, spending, western-civ'ing the Soviet Union is good enough for POTUS hall of fame status of course, even if he was a lynchpin in modern California-style gun control.
I agree that Cruz could have been the guy, if he had Rubio's face, and maybe was more of a regular main-line McProtestant, instead of whatever snake-handling stuff the family was into. =D
Although Cruz was my guy, even with the snake-handling.
-
Not only could I say that, that's exactly what I'm saying. :P
Cruz wasnt that good on the issues until trump hopped in and cruz became a metoo candidate. Cruz would have been just a shade to the right of jeb and rubio without trump in the race. And then there is the sociopathy and uncanny valley cruz oozes. I was much more positively disposed to cruz before i saw video of him and he creeped out me and the wife. We are smack dab in his target demographic on the issues and culturally but we were just plain repelled by him.
-
Cruz wasnt that good on the issues until trump hopped in and cruz became a metoo candidate. Cruz would have been just a shade to the right of jeb and rubio without trump in the race. And then there is the sociopathy and uncanny valley cruz oozes. I was much more positively disposed to cruz before i saw video of him and he creeped out me and the wife. We are smack dab in his target demographic on the issues and culturally but we were just plain repelled by him.
I find it amusing for someone supporting Trump to claim someone else's candidate is a sociopath.
sociopath
[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
noun, Psychiatry.
1.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Yeah, that's been Cruz's track record, stepping on anyone in his way to get what he wants...
-
Cruz was expecting to be THE outsider candidate that the establishment didn't like. Trump came in and took that label from him along with taking some of the voters Cruz needed. At this point, I don't know what the primary debate issues would have been if Trump wasn't there. His media attention focused everything on immigration and whatever he talked about. I know Jeb would have been stronger deeper into the process which would have changed the whole picture. As it was, Jeb was a dead man walking before the primaries even started. In addition, there are whole lot of Trump supporters that would not be active in this campaign were it not for Trump. I don't know if Cruz would have had the charisma to bring them in.
-
Rush mentioned something on today's show about a media directive from Clinton's campaign that "suggested" everyone react to any Trump comment about guns/violence in exactly the way they are reacting. I don't remember where it came from and I can't find a link.
-
LOL. A $2 Billion donation in kind to Mr. Trump by the media was a bit of an advantage to overcome, YET, he came the closest of any candidate to succeed in doing so.
Instead we now have a candidate (like we always end up with) who had the media on his side during the primary and seems unable to deal with their sudden turn against him, now that he's attacking THEIR side.
Early on Cruz was pretty much my choice. Like with Hillary though, the more I actually saw and listened to him the less I liked him. He was good on paper for the most part. His demeanor and weakness on immigration is what lost me.
Trump never has had my trust but I no longer think he is a Hillary stalking horse. A strong America is what is good for Trump enterprises and he is doing what he can to make that happen. I'm not getting much of a globalist vibe off him, ha ha ha
-
“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"
-Trump
Point taken. I forgot about that.
-
If we don't want to have professional politicians in D.C., we need to understand that the non-professionals will not be perfect speakers and they will put their foot in the mouth occasionally. If we overreact to every little questionable thing they say, we are just training them to not say anything just like the professional liars we don't like.
I agree with your sentiment, but having non-professional politicians doesn't mean they have to be crappy speakers. Whether you like or hate them and what they say, a sample of somewhat recent "non-professionals" who jumped into politics and spoke/speak eloquently, or at least clearly:
Reagan
Obama
Fred Thompson
Even Arnold "English is my second language" Schwarzenegger managed to get his points across about 300% better than Trump.
I don't expect perfection by Trump, but he's been told 100 million times by now that he needs to engage his brain before putting his mouth in gear. He needs to use strict talking points for stuff he doesn't fully grasp, which is pretty much everything except the economy and infrastructure. I have heard several of his talks on both those subjects, and he generally does a very good job discussing them off the cuff and off script. Not so much other stuff.
I do fully recognize that the media has it in for him and that they have misrepresented / taken out of context what he has said probably ten times more often than he has legitimately screwed up.
-
Quote from: BTR on Today at 10:09:04 AM
“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"
-Trump
Point taken. I forgot about that.
Of course, the current administration never does anything like that.
Do they?
-
Earlier in the year, Clinton commented that she was most proud of having the NRA as an enemy. Was that a veiled threat against its members?
-
Earlier in the year, Clinton commented that she was most proud of having the NRA as an enemy. Was that a veiled threat against its members?
I wouldn't say it was veiled ...
-
Ben, I'm going to have to nitpick.
Reagan was an actor (with more lines that "I'll be back") . He was a professional speaker, just not a political one (before he got into politics)
-
I agree with your sentiment, but having non-professional politicians doesn't mean they have to be crappy speakers. Whether you like or hate them and what they say, a sample of somewhat recent "non-professionals" who jumped into politics and spoke/speak eloquently, or at least clearly:
Reagan
Obama
Fred Thompson
Even Arnold "English is my second language" Schwarzenegger managed to get his points across about 300% better than Trump.
I don't expect perfection by Trump, but he's been told 100 million times by now that he needs to engage his brain before putting his mouth in gear. He needs to use strict talking points for stuff he doesn't fully grasp, which is pretty much everything except the economy and infrastructure. I have heard several of his talks on both those subjects, and he generally does a very good job discussing them off the cuff and off script. Not so much other stuff.
I do fully recognize that the media has it in for him and that they have misrepresented / taken out of context what he has said probably ten times more often than he has legitimately screwed up.
Perhaps speaking ability is not one of my most important attributes. I tend to pay more attention to what they say. I refuse to dismiss a candidate just because I wasn't bowled over by their great speech.
My main point in all this is I like that Trump doesn't seem to focus group every word he says. So I try to avoid over-analyzing every syllable he utters since I know he is going to misspeak or not get his point across quite so well sometimes. I can live with that. It might mean we get better candidates who speak their minds more when running for office.
-
With Hillary as the media's candidate for this election, any of the Republican candidates would have been savaged by the press just as Trump has been. I've heard Mitt Romney described as the nicest guy who ever ran for president, but that didn't stop the media from going bonkers over him putting the dog in its kennel cage on top of the car, for having a "file" of women, for laying off hundreds or thousands of people (which he didn't do), and a zillion other things.
The media attacks on Trump are at record levels, though. Even the media admits that. A columnist in the NY Times yesterday or the day before wrote about how the media has gone further than ever in attacking the Republican candidate. He justifies it, though, by saying that Trump is a danger to this country, and it's the media's duty to stop Trump. I thought that was Hillary's task.
I didn't think anything of his comment on the Second Amendment, because there was nothing to think about. Ditto with his jokes about the baby, about the fire marshall, and any of the other "scandalous" comments. He's nowhere near as acerbic as he was in the primaries. If anything, he's not being hard enough on Hillary.
-
What's rather ironic, I think, is how we have all these SJW who actually do call for killing of white people, gun owners, hunters, etc.
-
Of course the media would viciously attack an republican candidate. However, with most of the candidates, they would have to use lies to do so. Trump really is a slimy, corrupt liar with no principles, and many media attacks against him are accurate. Most of my family is very conservative and we don't like him at all. He is losing the military vote, a traditionally republican demographic.
He is a TERRIBLE candidate for the general election.
-
Of course the media would viciously attack an republican candidate. However, with most of the candidates, they would have to use lies to do so. Trump really is a slimy, corrupt liar with no principles, and many media attacks against him are accurate. Most of my family is very conservative and we don't like him at all. He is losing the military vote, a traditionally republican demographic.
He is a TERRIBLE candidate for the general election.
Fixed that for you.
Of course the media would viciously attack an republican candidate. However, with most of the candidates, they would have to use lies to do so. Trump really is a slimy, corrupt liar with no principles, and many media attacks against him are accurate. Most of my family is very conservative and we don't like him at all. He is losing the military vote, a traditionally republican demographic.
He is a TERRIBLE candidate for the general election person.
Fixed it again.
The only question in this election is if you can vote for a terrible person and candidate and then which one (if you're choosing between the four biggest parties, I don't know beyond those four.)
I've found my limit this election. I still hope Trump wins, but I cannot give him my vote.
-
I find it amusing for someone supporting Trump to claim someone else's candidate is a sociopath.
Yeah, that's been Cruz's track record, stepping on anyone in his way to get what he wants...
You are mistaking drive to succeed and a lack of "Midwestern Nice" for sociopathy. Trump's demeanor is very much like the northeastern transplants I spent some years with growing up with. Ethnic Italian/Jewish/whatever sorts from urban megalopolises exhibit a much more aggressive, verbal, in-your-face attitude; as well as more conscious displays/strutting. The former appears gauche and the latter appears mildly comical to those brought up in more stoic subcultures. OTOH, they are not going to roll over and let you bugger them the way so many midwestern folk let outsiders get after them.
And drive to succeed is what it is. Some folk have it, some understand it, and some fear it.
Trump is obviously not a sociopath due to his documented interaction with humans that express sympathy/empathy and reciprocation:
1. Loyalty to allies, friends, and employees to the point he takes political and/or monetary damage from it.
2. Ever listen to his ex-wives? They are positively disposed toward him despite his failings.
3. Decades-long friends, especially with peers, who don't depend on him for a paycheck.
4. Trump's kiddos' attitude toward their dad is not what I have experienced with the children of sociopaths.
5. Documented group loyalty to his old-fashioned notion of America.
FTR, I do not consider Cruz's drive toward success as sociopathic. Sure, it can be, but drive by itself is not enough. I do consider his uncanny valley learned-not-instinctive smile and facial expressions a problem, as well as his complete lack of friends to be indicative of an emotional vacuum at his core.
Early on Cruz was pretty much my choice. Like with Hillary though, the more I actually saw and listened to him the less I liked him. He was good on paper for the most part. His demeanor and weakness on immigration is what lost me.
Almost precisely how I ended up voting for Trump in the primaries. On paper, Cruz looked great. The creepifying reality, not so much. That taught me a lesson that I need to get video of any candidate I may support. Not to see if they are good on teevee, but to take their measure when interacting with other humans.
And of course Cruz was weak on immigration and trade, just one more globalist errand-boy once you got past the verbal squid ink.
-
I saw Cruz speak in person, and didn't get any of the creepy vibes some people got. Sure, he's not pretty, but then, neither are the two that made it to the general.
-
Of course the media would viciously attack an republican candidate. However, with most of the candidates, they would have to use lies to do so. Trump really is a slimy, corrupt liar with no principles, and many media attacks against him are accurate. Most of my family is very conservative and we don't like him at all. He is losing the military vote, a traditionally republican demographic.
He is a TERRIBLE candidate for the general election.
The most recent poll I've seen is a Military Times poll showing Trump beating Hillary by a 2 to 1 margin among the enlisted.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/07/17/military-times-survey-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/87024898/
-
He is losing the military vote, a traditionally republican demographic.
Source?
-
Which of the two is a better gamble on second amendment issues? Trump or Hillary?
Which of the two is a better gamble on Supreme Court picks? Trump or Hillary?
Which of the two is a better gamble on economic issues? Trump or Hillary?
Which of the two has a history of supporting military adventurism in the middle east? Trump or Hillary?
Which of the two stands a better chance of if not protecting unborn babies at least stopping our government from financially supporting the baby killing business?
These are the questions that haunt me and make me consider the unthinkable...voting for Trump.
-
These are the questions that haunt me and make me consider the unthinkable...voting for Trump.
You and me both, brother.
At this point, I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. I probably will still be unsure when I receive my ballot. I will be unsure the minute before I bubble in / write in my choice. I will be unsure the minute after I bubble in / write in my choice.
Even with Bush term 2, which I was not at all pleased with, I was at least sure that I was holding my nose and voting.
-
I voted for McCain. If I can stomach that, voting for Trump is easy. =D
-
I saw Cruz speak in person, and didn't get any of the creepy vibes some people got. Sure, he's not pretty, but then, neither are the two that made it to the general.
ro_oster has been saying that for months. I don't see it either. I just figured it was because he was always a Trump guy and didn't have anything else to say about Cruz.
From another perspective, it is a symptom of another problem with modern politics. We expect all our politicians to be tall and good looking and look great on TV. Why is that required?
-
ro_oster has been saying that for months. I don't see it either. I just figured it was because he was always a Trump guy and didn't have anything else to say about Cruz.
From another perspective, it is a symptom of another problem with modern politics. We expect all our politicians to be tall and good looking and look great on TV. Why is that required?
Myself, I wanted to like Cruz but there was something about him that I found off putting. He lined up with me on paper well.
His dismal handling of Trump tells me he isn't Presidential timber. Trump magnanimously even let him non endorse him at the convention he considered him such a non entity. Trump made Cruz into his little bitch. We've already had one of those as President for eight years.
-
ro_oster has been saying that for months. I don't see it either. I just figured it was because he was always a Trump guy and didn't have anything else to say about Cruz.
From another perspective, it is a symptom of another problem with modern politics. We expect all our politicians to be tall and good looking and look great on TV. Why is that required?
Do a search. I am on the record saying that I think Cruz was not only the smartest guy running in 2016, but likely the smartest guy to run in a long time. And that before Trump, he was my #1 pick. After Trump, my #2 pick.
I don't expect Cruz or any particular candidate to be great on teevee, but I get the same vibe off him as I did off some sociopaths I have encountered. And his lack of personal relationships that show sympathy/empathy, or loyalty does not speak well of him. At first I wrote it off as nerdiness, but it seems to run deeper than that.
-
FTR, I do not consider Cruz's drive toward success as sociopathic. Sure, it can be, but drive by itself is not enough. I do consider his uncanny valley learned-not-instinctive smile and facial expressions a problem, as well as his complete lack of friends to be indicative of an emotional vacuum at his core.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/ted-cruz-college-roommate.html
-
Do a search. I am on the record saying that I think Cruz was not only the smartest guy running in 2016, but likely the smartest guy to run in a long time. And that before Trump, he was my #1 pick. After Trump, my #2 pick.
I don't expect Cruz or any particular candidate to be great on teevee, but I get the same vibe off him as I did off some sociopaths I have encountered. And his lack of personal relationships that show sympathy/empathy, or loyalty does not speak well of him. At first I wrote it off as nerdiness, but it seems to run deeper than that.
You are the only one I have ever heard comment about his personal relationships. I have heard several people who know him talk about him and never heard any say anything bad. I heard a comment from one of his law school professors saying he was one of a handful they would mention as the smartest people who came through their school in their career. I don't think you are bothering to look.
-
You are the only one I have ever heard comment about his personal relationships. I have heard several people who know him talk about him and never heard any say anything bad. I heard a comment from one of his law school professors saying he was one of a handful they would mention as the smartest people who came through their school in their career. I don't think you are bothering to look.
Alan Dershowitz was the law prof who praised his intelligence. It helped confirm the assessment of Cruz's intelligence I had made while he was Texas's solicitor general & senator. Part of the reason he was my #1 pick before Trump jumped in. I also recall when Michael Ledeen was singing Cruz's praises in NR when Cruz was running for US Senate. IOW, I looked plenty.
mak linked to his college room mate. I had forgotten about him, but read it when it was first written. So, I withdraw the "completely" from my post time stamped 10:32:03.
-
Myself, I wanted to like Cruz but there was something about him that I found off putting. He lined up with me on paper well.
His dismal handling of Trump tells me he isn't Presidential timber. Trump magnanimously even let him non endorse him at the convention he considered him such a non entity. Trump made Cruz into his little bitch. We've already had one of those as President for eight years.
I was a Cruz supporter, voted for in our primary. Something about him just felt "off" the more I saw of him though. His displays of desperation towards the end of the primary really soured him for me. That and I just kept getting a sort of Nehemiah Scudder kind of vibe off of him.
-
From another perspective, it is a symptom of another problem with modern politics. We expect all our politicians to be tall and good looking and look great on TV. Why is that required?
I certainly don't expect all politicians to be tall and good looking, and since I don't watch television I don't care how telegenic they are or aren't. But IMHO it still helps a lot to not look like a weasel with a perpetual sneer.
-
My first choice was Rand Paul. Then I started to lean toward Crux. One night I'm up late and channel surfing and I run across Cruz being interviewed by someone. Cruz started droning on and on and it began to sound like he was some sort of mechanical thing someone put a quarter in it and flipped the on switch. It was really weird, but I never was able to look at him or listen to him the same way again.
I don't agree or disagree with all of Cruz's views, but I think him to be extremely bright and he is definitely, in my view, a constitutionalist. But after that night I just....couldn't handle him anymore. Probably very shallow of me. He may have made a good president.
Sometimes I think in our Republic the right person shows up at the right time and we are moved forward in a positive way or the system becomes more corrupt. There are always lessons. I have no idea for sure where we are now, except Hillary Clinton might just be the final nail in the coffin as the useful idiots will bow to her every desire and the oligarchy will become strengthened. As for Trump, he may push us in the right direction and he will be opposed at every step by the media, the D's and GOPe. That might be a good thing because maybe America will wake up to what we have lost and reinforce what we may gain. Trump is at least a hope for the Republic when viewed against the alternative. That says nothing about the SCOTUS reality with Hillary.
-
The most recent poll I've seen is a Military Times poll showing Trump beating Hillary by a 2 to 1 margin among the enlisted.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/07/17/military-times-survey-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/87024898/
This is what I was looking at, showing that Gary Johnson was beating him in a poll:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops
Maybe it is a bad poll I was looking at... who knows... still a republican candidate should have a high favorablity rating with the military. Which Trump doesn't have at all, according to your source:
"More than 61 percent indicated they are "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with Trump as the Republican nominee."
Among a Republican demographic, that is TERRIBLE.
-
This is the perfect storm of "idiot shooting his mouth off" and "media rising to autistic levels of literalistic stupidity." Trump wasn't calling for Civil War 2, and most of the people excoriating him realize that.
I'm still not sure how "He's an idiot who says dangerous things" is a selling point for Trump, when those same people are blaming Obama's extremely mild rhetoric for attacks on police.
Obama: "The police acted stupidly." APS: "OMG IT'S HIS FAULT ANYTIME A COP GETS A PAPERCUT!"
Trump: "I love dictators, especially Putin! I don't think we should support NATO unless they pay us ransom. And I might just nuke some people for the hell of it." APS: "It's so refreshing to have someone who speaks his mind!"
-
This is the perfect storm of "idiot shooting his mouth off" and "media rising to autistic levels of literalistic stupidity." Trump wasn't calling for Civil War 2, and most of the people excoriating him realize that.
I'm still not sure how "He's an idiot who says dangerous things" is a selling point for Trump, when those same people are blaming Obama's extremely mild rhetoric for attacks on police.
Obama: "The police acted stupidly." APS: "OMG IT'S HIS FAULT ANYTIME A COP GETS A PAPERCUT!"
Trump: "I love dictators, especially Putin! I don't think we should support NATO unless they pay us ransom. And I might just nuke some people for the hell of it." APS: "It's so refreshing to have someone who speaks his mind!"
I believe you slandered autistic folks there comparing them to the media
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
This is the perfect storm of "idiot shooting his mouth off" and "media rising to autistic levels of literalistic stupidity." Trump wasn't calling for Civil War 2, and most of the people excoriating him realize that.
I'm still not sure how "He's an idiot who says dangerous things" is a selling point for Trump, when those same people are blaming Obama's extremely mild rhetoric for attacks on police.
Obama: "The police acted stupidly." APS: "OMG IT'S HIS FAULT ANYTIME A COP GETS A PAPERCUT!"
Trump: "I love dictators, especially Putin! I don't think we should support NATO unless they pay us ransom. And I might just nuke some people for the hell of it." APS: "It's so refreshing to have someone who speaks his mind!"
I gather you're running for Director of the Department of Hyperbole?