Why would anyone for Democrat?

[Tombs]

You really just want someone to validate your own belief that liberals are evil and dumb.

I don't think universal truths need validation.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7848

Republicans got fed up with their party's nonsense and nominated someone to oppose status quo because they don't want those corrupt and nasty people representing them anymore. Democrats nominated the icon of status quo, reaffirming that they will follow the party hook, line, and sinker no matter the depths the party is willing to go to.

 

[Dead Duck]

Why would anyone for Democrat?

The same reason people marry RedHeads.
They need someone to tell them what to do every second of EVERY ****ING DAY!

 

[jamil]

I don't think universal truths need validation.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7848

Republicans got fed up with their party's nonsense and nominated someone to oppose status quo because they don't want those corrupt and nasty people representing them anymore. Democrats nominated the icon of status quo, reaffirming that they will follow the party hook, line, and sinker no matter the depths the party is willing to go to.

I think you can't say "Republicans" as a monolith. Less than half of Republicans voted for him, and the system used to vote made it so a person a majority of Republicans didn't want won the nomination. I mean, Trump is the winner by the rules. He's the nominee. But if you're going to say people got fed up, you can at most say, *some* Republicans, or 45% of Republicans. Leaving that qualifier out is misleading.

The same reason people marry RedHeads.
They need someone to tell them what to do every second of EVERY ****ING DAY!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dead Duck again."

 

[Tombs]

I think you can't say "Republicans" as a monolith. Less than half of Republicans voted for him, and the system used to vote made it so a person a majority of Republicans didn't want won the nomination. I mean, Trump is the winner by the rules. He's the nominee. But if you're going to say people got fed up, you can at most say, *some* Republicans, or 45% of Republicans. Leaving that qualifier out is misleading.



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dead Duck again."

Cruz wasn't an establishment candidate either, at least not that his supporters believed.

Neither was Rubio.

That's 81% of the republican party voting against perceived establishment.

If we take Bush as a comparable person in the republican party to Clinton, well... He got 0.92% of the vote.

 

[jamil]

Cruz wasn't an establishment candidate either, at least not that his supporters believed.

Neither was Rubio.

That's 81% of the republican party voting against perceived establishment.

If we take Bush as a comparable person in the republican party to Clinton, well... He got 0.92% of the vote.

Rubio was more of an establishment candidate than not. It's not like the Tea Party was the base of his supporters. Cruz, I guess was seen as more of an outsider because everyone in Washington hated him. I'm not really sure that fully qualifies him as non-establishment as fully as you mean it.

But the point is not lost on me. Before even the first primary vote, we talked about the polls showing that the least "establishment" candidates getting a large majority of the votes. Summing the poll numbers for Trump, Carson and Fiorina, they were well ahead of any of the office holders, establishment or otherwise. Add in some of the less GOPe candidates and there's a clear majority. I get that this election is a reflection of frustration. I don't think the GOPe is the only place that frustration is directed at.

 

[indiucky]

I used to vote for Lee Hamilton....From 1984 to 1994...He quit getting my vote (and every person in southern Indiana with my last name)when he voted for the AWB in 1994....

 

[Indynic]

You say this as if your are serious:

Then you follow it up with this which leads me to believe you really don't care to understand, but just want to vent to the conservative echo chamber know as INGO:

And now I know you definitely don't care about someone's opinion that differs from your own:

You really just want someone to validate your own belief that liberals are evil and dumb.



Nothing new on INGO today.

Cute breakdown, but your conclusion is way off. I really want to understand the other side, but when the only thing Eva Longoria has to say is "I'm a la Tina woman, introducing a black man and later a woman nominated for president." (Slight paraphrase) It makes me roll my eyes. Pandering at its cheapest.

Then, later Michelle is talking about slaves building the Whitehouse. The Obamas' never let a soapbox slip by without trying to cause some racial unrest.

How about addressing the real threat of domestic terror or addressing bad trade deals like NAFTA or TPP? But, they don't. It's constant pandering to these made up cultural issues.

 

[Captain Bligh]

...
Then, later Michelle is talking about slaves building the Whitehouse. The Obamas' never let a soapbox slip by without trying to cause some racial unrest.

How about addressing the real threat of domestic terror or addressing bad trade deals like NAFTA or TPP? But, they don't. It's constant pandering to these made up cultural issues.

How is Mrs. Obama saying that slaves built the Whitehouse, "trying to cause some racial unrest?" It's a fact. And if you think racism in our society is some made up cultural issue, you've got your head in the sand.

 

[jamil]

How is Mrs. Obama saying that slaves built the Whitehouse, "trying to cause some racial unrest?" It's a fact. And if you think racism in our society is some made up cultural issue, you've got your head in the sand.

We need to be honest about what her line about slaves building the White House meant. The context was the accomplishments and progress America has made on racial issues, that a Black family now resides in a house built by Black slaves for White male presidents. It's a powerful way to make that point about racial progress. Of course, it's hard to make that point stick while the left makes more of racial issues than there is. And I'm not saying that there is no more racism or that racism is a made up cultural issue. I am saying that the left greatly oversteps reality WRT race.

 

[halfmileharry]

The same reason people marry RedHeads.
They need someone to tell them what to do every second of EVERY ****ING DAY!

I got rid of my redhead and replaced her with a newer model.

 

[Tombs]

How is Mrs. Obama saying that slaves built the Whitehouse, "trying to cause some racial unrest?" It's a fact. And if you think racism in our society is some made up cultural issue, you've got your head in the sand.

When racial tensions are at their worst, you don't keep stoking the coals, you mediate and cool things off.

Nothing positive comes of everyone being at each other's throats.

Racism is something that naturally dies out generationally. Getting a whole new generation to generate negative views is not exactly a wise choice.

 

[Captain Bligh]

When racial tensions are at their worst, you don't keep stoking the coals, you mediate and cool things off.

Nothing positive comes of everyone being at each other's throats.

Racism is something that naturally dies out generationally. Getting a whole new generation to generate negative views is not exactly a wise choice.

Laughable. There was no stoking coals, no being at anyone's throat. Quite the opposite. She said slaves built the White House and these years later her daughters could play on the White House lawn. Change. Progress. And, that now a woman can be president. Change. Progress. Get it?

 

[Tombs]

Laughable. There was no stoking coals, no being at anyone's throat. Quite the opposite. She said slaves built the White House and these years later her daughters could play on the White House lawn. Change. Progress. And, that now a woman can be president. Change. Progress. Get it?

I didn't know slavery existed between 1949 and 1951.

 

[Winamac]

Most people that vote democrat don't actually pay attention to what the democrats are actually doing. They believe every word people like Hillary say. Also you can't seem to have an adult convo with a democrat. They have zero facts behind there arguments no understanding of any of the issues.

^^^^^^^ This^^^^^^ My mother and father-in-law are hard core Democrat and Clinton supporters, my father-in-law especially.. My wife and I are republican. I have tried and cannot have a calm adult conversation with my father-in-law without him getting all pi$$ed off. He just will not hear it. No matter what points/issues I bring up as proof that Clinton should not be elected, he just plain refuses to believe them. He claims they never happened. It is as though he has blinders on?

 

[Tombs]

^^^^^^^ This^^^^^^ My mother and father-in-law are hard core Democrat and Clinton supporters, my father-in-law especially.. My wife and I are republican. I have tried and cannot have a calm adult conversation with my father-in-law without him getting all pi$$ed off. He just will not hear it. No matter what points/issues I bring up as proof that Clinton should not be elected, he just plain refuses to believe them. He claims they never happened. It is as though he has blinders on?

Amazingly literal.

 

[churchmouse]

Laughable. There was no stoking coals, no being at anyone's throat. Quite the opposite. She said slaves built the White House and these years later her daughters could play on the White House lawn. Change. Progress. And, that now a woman can be president. Change. Progress. Get it?

Well the entire premise of her remark was historically wrong.
Slaves were involved but just a part of the picture.

 

[churchmouse]

^^^^^^^ This^^^^^^ My mother and father-in-law are hard core Democrat and Clinton supporters, my father-in-law especially.. My wife and I are republican. I have tried and cannot have a calm adult conversation with my father-in-law without him getting all pi$$ed off. He just will not hear it. No matter what points/issues I bring up as proof that Clinton should not be elected, he just plain refuses to believe them. He claims they never happened. It is as though he has blinders on?

He/they do have blinders on.

 

[AA&E]

There's a LOT of truth in this. A guy who is 70 years old, who's sought out the public eye for the past 30+ years, just now is deciding to make his political thoughts known? He's backed liberals for years, what was the flashpoint for him to switch sides?

You are aware there is no legal requirement a candidate release their tax records I assume? Would you release your tax documents for public viewing in the pursuit of a job? I wouldn't. I think the OPM looking at mine is intrusive enough, I don't want every media expert on the planet scrutinizing my business dealings.

 

[AA&E]

I don't think universal truths need validation.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7848

Republicans got fed up with their party's nonsense and nominated someone to oppose status quo because they don't want those corrupt and nasty people representing them anymore. Democrats nominated the icon of status quo, reaffirming that they will follow the party hook, line, and sinker no matter the depths the party is willing to go to.

Well to be fair, the DNC manipulated the primary election process to subvert the will of the people by casting Bernie Sanders in a bad light at every opportunity. I don't place the nomination at the feet of Democrats, just the party chair and corrupt system they control.

 

[AA&E]

I think you can't say "Republicans" as a monolith. Less than half of Republicans voted for him, and the system used to vote made it so a person a majority of Republicans didn't want won the nomination. I mean, Trump is the winner by the rules. He's the nominee. But if you're going to say people got fed up, you can at most say, *some* Republicans, or 45% of Republicans. Leaving that qualifier out is misleading.



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dead Duck again."

45% out of a field of 14 or 15 people (at the beginning) is still quite an accomplishment.