Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantTrump scored biggest, IMO, when he talked about Clinton and the Dems being there for thirty years with nothing to show for it. Basically, to paraphrase him — his word salad needs translators like Chaucer to modern English — endless promises and no action. Which I agree with. The Dems make all of these promises but end up compromising with the enemy — Trump’s party — over and over again, watering down legislation or caving into them entirely. The Dems haven’t produced anything worthwhile, with a couple of exceptions, since the early 1970s.
Problem for Trump is this: He has no legit answers to this parade of false promises. His economic plan is just warmed over freshwater, Chicago School, Reagan/Thatcher bullshit. Voodoo economics, as Bush Sr. once called it before he accepted the VP spot.
He’s absolutely right to point out the epic failure of the Dems. But his answers are to replay the epic failures of the Republicans, on steroids, and with the element of his own “ugly American”ism thrown in for bad measure.
Billy_TParticipantI feel guilty for doing this, but I watched it. It was, as you would expect, nails on a blackboard. Trump, for the most part, was a bully and a buffoon, who came close to reverting to his puerile antics of the Republican debates. Very close. Sniffled throughout, smirked, was nearly always incoherent. He interrupted Clinton and Holt (the moderator) constantly, refused to stop when his time was up, and basically made an ass out of himself. But he did score a few direct hits. I have no doubt his followers loved every second of it and likely thought he won big.
Clinton, relatively speaking, was solid, but never inspiring. She had command of mainstream givens, knew the facts, and didn’t let Trump get to her. I think she let him off the hook a coupla times, especially when the subject turned to race. She should have mentioned that Trump hired a white supremacist as his manager (Steve Bannon), but I’m guessing her handlers told her not to go there, because of the “basket of deplorables” backlash. From my point of view, that had been a mistake only insofar as she brought voters into the mix. Had she stayed with politicians and other public figures, it would have been fine. Don’t punch down. Punch up, etc. Regardless, she should have brought up the white supremacists who either work for him or support him, while staying away from voters . . .
Billy_TParticipantNittany,
Congrats!!
Will we be able to see your essay online?
And that is a pretty cool title. I have a feeling HBO is going to bid on the rights, and soon. The Night of Direct Oral Anticoagulants has the sound of classic Film Noir.
;>)
Billy_TParticipant… impression was that HRC comes off as a mean old hag too often.
Trump comes off as kind of a dopey, moronic drunken uncle who’s pissed about how his life turned out..—————-
My impression is that she is a mean old hag and she supports policies that will contribute to the destruction of the entire Biosphere.My impression of him is he’s a dopey, moronic drunken uncle who’s pissed about how his life turned out and he supports policies that will contribute to the destruction of the entire Biosphere.
…btw, I’m wondering which nitwit-pundit will be the first to say “He (or she) “seemed presidential.”
w
vThey both do support planet-killing policies. Trump plans to speed up the process:
excerpt:
BISMARCK, N.D. — Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement,” the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change.
Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama’s signature climate change rules and revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
[and . . .]
A central question confronting the next president will be how to address climate change. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the established science that climate change is caused by humans, vowed in his speech to undo many of Mr. Obama’s initiatives.
He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.”
Mr. Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind” Environmental Protection Agency regulations established under Mr. Obama to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” Mr. Trump said.
September 26, 2016 at 2:28 pm in reply to: Cheating to help Hildabeast. Yes ear mics so her fraud continues. #53907Billy_TParticipantYou just can’t help yourself, can ya?
The World Tribune is a website and side project of the Washington Times. As in, the hard-right paper owned by the wack-job Reverend Moon. The editor and publisher is Robert Morton, a Moonie himself.
Please try to find legit sources.
September 26, 2016 at 11:10 am in reply to: Why It’s So Hard to Talk to White People About Racism #53895Billy_TParticipantOne of the best examples of the unconscious form is also one of the most seemingly innocuous. It used to be the norm that “flesh colored” crayons were beige-like. I grew up with them. Apparently, however — I googled this — Crayola woke up and changed the name in 1962, when researchers pointed out to them that some kids were making fun of others if they didn’t match up with that color.
Billy_TParticipantI think its tonight isn’t it?
I might watch a few minutes of it, but i doubt it.
The sight of mainstream-celebrity-weasels
asking questions to the millionaire-weasel and the billionaire-weasel,
is probably more than i can stomach.The only thing worse than the ‘debate’ itself, is the post-debate yapping, posturing, spinning, and weaseling by the usual celebrity-dems, celebrity-reps and celebrity-pundits.
Think i might watch an old episode of the Walking Dead
instead.w
vThat pretty much sums it up.
;>)
I’m going to record it and may skim through it later.
The bar is set so low for Trump, if he doesn’t poop on the stage and throw it at the audience, those celebrity pundits will likely say he “won.”
September 26, 2016 at 10:32 am in reply to: Why It’s So Hard to Talk to White People About Racism #53888Billy_TParticipantI’m just starting into Simone de Beauvoir’s classic The Second Sex (1949), newly translated (2009) and unabridged. It’s interesting that she talks about male/female relationships in much the same way DiAngelo does about “race”.
But I do think the author of the essay is wrong about at least one aspect: That people actually believe in the binary, that if one is not “racist,” then one is necessarily “good.” I think that’s a bit of a strawman and seriously simplistic. Most thinking people realize that the absence of conscious racism does not preclude other horrors. One could be the perfect embodiment of an “anti-racist” but also be a murderer, or a rapist, or some lesser “bad thing.” The potential for human cruelty is not limited to matters of race, etc. etc.
And, if one is solely focused on the dialectic between conscious and unconscious racism, or that anti-racist whites benefit from white supremacy as well, I also think most thinking adults see this.
That aside, a good essay.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
I stand by that quote, too. If I rushed to judgment, I apologize. It may well be bnw just wanted to let me know of an alternative kind of car. That kind of exchange is more than welcome.
That said, I also wanted to correct the record. I’m not an advocate for an all-electric fleet, etc. etc. I actually want us to go to all solar cars, that bypass the need for any kind of “charging” via electric outlet. To me, that should be our goal.
Solar and wind are literally “renewable” in ways that other alternatives simply can’t be. The use of water, for instance, even if done in a “green” manner, is going to have some negative impact on the environment and deplete a precious resource. I’d much rather we focus on sources that can’t be depleted and don’t have to be extracted, etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantSo, again, bnw, you have fringe nonsense regarding the Clinton Foundation, and Trump accusations, which have been fact-checked, but you support Trump who has much closer ties to the Saudis, and actually has businesses there.
Trump benefits from countries with anti-gay laws
Wealthy Muslims helped Donald Trump build his empire
So, again, yes, the Clinton Foundation has taken Saudi money for its charities. But you seem to think the answer to this is to support Trump who owns businesses there and is indebted to wealthy Arab elites.
Being highly critical of the Clintons makes a ton of sense. But thinking Trump is the answer is insane.
September 25, 2016 at 9:40 pm in reply to: NSA Analyst: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham #53852Billy_TParticipantbnw,
Seriously. The record of the far right — Trump’s base — when it comes to their umpteen faux “scandals,” is soooo abysmal, so absurd, so steeped in abject paranoia and fear, they’ve discredited themselves for generations to come. Sandy Hook as a supposed “false flag” does that all by itself.
They haven’t come close to “the truth” in centuries. Literally.
Again, your best bet, when it comes to accurate, honest critique of the Dems and Clinton, is to find leftist sources. Chomsky is a great place to start, and someone who has perhaps the best Rolodex of critics available, anywhere. WV has been championing him for years and years, against the odds, and rightly so.
If truth matters to you, bnw, I guarantee you this: You will never, ever find it on the right.
September 25, 2016 at 8:06 pm in reply to: NSA Analyst: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham #53823Billy_TParticipantIn short, bnw, your sources aren’t credible in the slightest. They just push fringe paranoid garbage. Decade after decade, that’s all we’ve gotten from the hard right. Lies, smears, appeals to abject fear, racism, homophobia, misogyny. You should reject Trump outright because he’s using the Alt-Right to gain power, radically increase his own wealth, and make sure his heirs never have to pay a dime in tax. He’s a crook, a serial liar and a con-artist.
Clinton is terrible. But Trump is a fascist wannabe. The Dems are a terrible, awful, no good party. But the GOP is now under the thumb of outright fascists.
The answer to the terrible, no good Dems is NOT the far worse, far more despicable Republicans.
September 25, 2016 at 8:00 pm in reply to: NSA Analyst: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham #53822Billy_TParticipantThe issue is the sham investigation by the FBI. Even Obama lied about his knowledge of the private email server. Those are facts. Facts are facts regardless of who writes or publishes. Can’t wait for Trump to select a non-Clinton/Wall Street crime syndicate affiliated U.S. Attorney General and FBI Director.
Bnw, this is really frustrating for me. I detest both parties. I don’t want either party to be anywhere near power. I can’t stand the Clintons, and they deserve a ton of criticism. A ton. Leftists have done amazing work, as far as investigative journalism regarding the Democrats, Clinton and BOTH parties.
That said, nothing you have ever posted on this board, as a criticism of Clinton, is factual. It’s all right-wing fringe, paranoid nonsense.
The right doesn’t offer facts. It offers fear, lies and delusion. For decades and decades, they’ve lied and smeared and slandered their opponents, destroyed lives, destroyed activists for the people, and the Alt-Right is latest iteration of this. If you are serious about finding good, honest, accurate critique of the Clintons, look to voices to the left of the mainstream. You won’t find any honest, accurate, objective voices on the hard right.
Emailgate? It’s manufactured nonsense. If the GOP didn’t see Clinton as a future candidate, they never would have bothered relentlessly investigating her. Same goes with the other nothingburger, Benghazi. Same goes with all of the phony scandals they whipped up to try to bring Obama down. Tragically, the Dems, along with Obama and Clinton, actually have engaged in horrific actions. Trouble is, the GOP was and is complicit in all of it. They’ve always supported capitalism and its violent export, colonialism, imperialism, empire, war after war after war, the mass surveillance state, etc. etc. They’re actually even more aggressive about these things than the Dems.
And Trump? He is too. He’s every bit the authoritarian piece of garbage that seems to pervade both parties. That you actually think he will be your champion is beyond baffling. He won’t. He’s always been for no one but himself.
September 25, 2016 at 3:51 pm in reply to: NSA Analyst: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham #53816Billy_TParticipantbnw,
Tell me, if Chelsea Clinton’s husband owned a media outlet, and he published an Op Ed highly critical of Trump, you’d dismiss it, right? Out of hand. You’d say there were obvious conflicts of interest, or something like that. You basically dismiss all criticism of Trump, regardless of Clinton connections, but if someone in the Clinton family did that, it would be automatic, correct?
Well, the owner and publisher of the observer is Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband.
You also should google the author. A sleazy, highly authoritarian (former) NSA operative, who is always ranting against government transparency. His politics are well-known and decidedly right wing.
September 24, 2016 at 2:28 pm in reply to: the blm 10 points…if you don't know this, you don't know a thing about THEM #53768Billy_TParticipantSoros is the right’s bogeyman. They’ve locked onto him like they locked onto Alinsky, being entirely clueless about both of them.
No one was extreme paranoia and tin-foil-hat nonsense like the right.
Soros the Nazi collaborator.
Soros the Jew, who was all of 13 when the Nazis occupied Hungary. Come on. Glenn Beck was taken to the woodshed by the ADL for trying to turn him into a collaborator.
I’m not a fan of his business dealings at all, and there is much to be critical of the way he accrued his fortune. But the right has consistently smeared him and lied about him and his philanthropy, trying to turn donations to mainstream causes into something sinister.
The right is drowning in the deepest paranoia and you shouldn’t fall for their nonsense.
September 24, 2016 at 1:50 pm in reply to: the blm 10 points…if you don't know this, you don't know a thing about THEM #53762Billy_TParticipantSoros is the right’s bogeyman. They’ve locked onto him like they locked onto Alinsky, being entirely clueless about both of them.
No one was extreme paranoia and tin-foil-hat nonsense like the right.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?
I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.
What do you want from the moderators, a confession? All that can be done is hold them to their questions and statements in the past. Their bias is obvious.
Again, you post an opinion piece, from a discredited source, and you accept that opinion without questioning it. You assume they’re telling you the truth, even though Shapiro doesn’t provide any video or audio to support his contention, and his analyses of the comments he does paraphrase are bizarre. It’s all too similar to the Breitbart opinion piece on Clinton’s racism, which basically did this:
Trump was accused of being a racist for saying X
Clinton said X
Therefore Clinton is a racist.Problem is, the premise is BS. No one accused Trump of racism for X. He was accused of racism for doing and saying other things entirely. So Breitbart — and now Shapiro — start with bogus premises, without video or audio proof, and make subjective judgments on top of those bogus premises.
Don’t fall for it, bnw.
Don’t obfuscate, BT.
I’m not. I’m being as clear as can be. You should really stop posting right-wing opinion pieces as if they were “proof.” At least if you want to persuade anyone here.
Billy_TParticipantIn short, no, their bias isn’t obvious at all. At least if you’re suggesting they’re biased against Trump. If they actually were, he would have been out of the race during the primaries. He never would have won the GOP nomination, if the Press had decided to do its job and investigate his background, mob ties, business dealings, adultery, charitable foundations, etc. etc. . . Clinton actually received far more scrutiny than Trump. They spent months on her email server and the Clinton Foundation, by way of contrast.
And beyond all of that, it’s just whining and playing the refs to complain about bias. This is something the right has done for decades, and it’s worked really, really well. It’s worked so well, they regularly outnumber Dems on TV by more than two to one on the Sunday Talk Shows. If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Conservatives!! This Week With the Conservatives!! and Face the Conservatives!!
In reality, our media tilt to the right, and they have for decades.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?
I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.
What do you want from the moderators, a confession? All that can be done is hold them to their questions and statements in the past. Their bias is obvious.
Again, you post an opinion piece, from a discredited source, and you accept that opinion without questioning it. You assume they’re telling you the truth, even though Shapiro doesn’t provide any video or audio to support his contention, and his analyses of the comments he does paraphrase are bizarre. It’s all too similar to the Breitbart opinion piece on Clinton’s racism, which basically did this:
Trump was accused of being a racist for saying X
Clinton said X
Therefore Clinton is a racist.Problem is, the premise is BS. No one accused Trump of racism for X. He was accused of racism for doing and saying other things entirely. So Breitbart — and now Shapiro — start with bogus premises, without video or audio proof, and make subjective judgments on top of those bogus premises.
Don’t fall for it, bnw.
Billy_TParticipantBeyond that, I would prefer that print journalists (rather than TV) ask the questions and fact-check both candidates, rigorously.
Better yet, I’d get the most respected political scientists and historians to ask them. I wish America didn’t have such an aversion to intellectuals, but it does, and this is something the right has fomented in particular. They actively seek the dumbing down of political culture in America, and Trump has taken this to a new low.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?
I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.
September 24, 2016 at 1:04 pm in reply to: the blm 10 points…if you don't know this, you don't know a thing about THEM #53749Billy_TParticipant11. Never pass up an opportunity to riot, loot and assault onlookers.
Do you honestly believe that’s BLM’s doing? It’s not. BLM is a non-violent social justice movement.
Yeah just choirboys and girls being funded by George Soros and bused around the country to riot, loot and assault people.
George Soros? So you really believe he’s funding BLM? Sheebus. Seriously, bnw. You need to reconsider your choice in “news” sources, ASAP. Cuz they’re feeding you classic tin-foil-hat nonsense.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
September 24, 2016 at 12:35 pm in reply to: the blm 10 points…if you don't know this, you don't know a thing about THEM #53745Billy_TParticipant11. Never pass up an opportunity to riot, loot and assault onlookers.
Do you honestly believe that’s BLM’s doing? It’s not. BLM is a non-violent social justice movement.
September 24, 2016 at 12:23 pm in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53743Billy_TParticipantSeems to me it’s the BLM who hates the government the most and are most dependent on the government financially, not the Tea Party folks. Tea Party people don’t hate the government. They are in favor of limited government, which was the general thought of the Constitutional fathers. And I am not a Tea Party member.
BLM has never expressed “hatred for the government.” That’s only the fuzzy false picture you get of them if all you know is what detractors say about them and don’t know what they themselves actually say. And the idea that those associated with BLM are more government dependent does not bear much close scrutiny.
We don’t listen to the constitutional fathers, who were very skeptical about letting corporate power dominate democracy. Basically that’s what we ended up with. If we had listened to them we would not have ended up with that. Interestingly part of the reason we suffer a system that limits democracy (because of the power the corporate world and the wealthy exercise over it) is because those forces used the “limit government” mantra to manipulate people. That just gave more power to them.
…
_________________________________________________________________
Allow me to re-phrase that.
The founding fathers were in favor of limited-
federal
government, for the most part.
As far as state government, very few had problems with wide reaching government.
But, again, if you look at the Constitution, they weren’t in favor of a “limited” federal government, either. We would have just stayed with the Articles of Confederation if that were the case. Remember, the anti-federalists lost the debate.
And, they did impose limits on the states, and established the supremacy clause.
Look at Section 10 for those state limits, and Section 8, especially, for massive powers granted to the Federal government:
September 24, 2016 at 10:55 am in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53731Billy_TParticipantSeems to me it’s the BLM who hates the government the most and are most dependent on the government financially, not the Tea Party folks. Tea Party people don’t hate the government. They are in favor of limited government, which was the general thought of the Constitutional fathers. And I am not a Tea Party member.
BLM doesn’t hate the government per se. It protests police brutality, primarily. Racism generally. Systemic racism and discrimination more specifically. And it’s not really accurate to say they’re more dependent on government. Under capitalism, no one is more dependent than business owners, corporations, the wealthy. They receive the vast majority of all the benefits handed out by our government, and it’s not at all close.
Also, the so-called “founders” didn’t believe in “limited government,” at least not in the sense “conservatives” assume. If they had, there never would have been an Article One, Section Eight. Actually, there never would have been a Constitution at all, which set up the most powerful, non-monarchical central government of its time. It was a “revolutionary” increase in power over the Articles of Confederation.
Billy_TParticipantTrump and Clinton will not address each other, only answering questions from the moderators. This will allow Clinton to memorize her answers since the moderators have only donated to one candidate, that being Clinton. Also prevents her from any risk of having to think on her feet. Despite scheduling it opposite MNF it should shatter viewership records.
It will also be the most time (90 minutes) that she will be witnessed as on her feet. Since it is against the rules to leave the stage her wire in her ear will have to stay put to keep her reaching for her ear at a minimum. Also I wonder what type of disruptions she has planned for the event in order to get around not leaving the stage? Protest in audience? Power outage? Fire alarm? The report of an active shooter nearby? Moderator falling ill? Bomb scare? The lies and deceit of Clinton are too numerous to count.
bnw, seriously. You need to stop listening to those fringe nutcases like Alex Jones and Breitbart in general. There is no proof that she wore an ear piece. I showed you the photos. And as for the moderators, Lester Holt is a Republican. And they all work for conservatives. All of our MSM are owned by multinationals with seriously conservative agendas. It’s always been bogus to assume that because a majority of reporters lean Dem, they’re actually setting the news agenda. They do as they’re told by their bosses — right-wingers — or they lose their jobs.
Come on, you can do better than the above GOP talking points.
September 24, 2016 at 10:26 am in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53725Billy_TParticipantThe other question is, why do the most privileged people in America — white Christian males — act like they’re the most oppressed? Why are they the angriest, on a day to day basis, when they have the fewest actual reasons to be so permanently outraged?
Typical. Always race pimpimg. Working people, aka taxpayers are fed up with being ignored, forgotten, sacrificed, by the establishment. Working people realize the establishment exists for itself and this election is their chance to demand fundamental change.
Just stating the facts, bnw. No one has it better in America than white Christian males. And from that group, rich white Christian males. Like Trump.
Btw, do you consider the government to be “the establishment”? It’s not. It works for “the establishment.” In America, that’s always been the rich and big business in general. It’s always been the private sector, not the public. Which is why it makes zero sense to want a billionaire real estate conman running things.
Billy_TParticipantYou’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.
Also, not sure if you’re trying to say that a “great majority of Americans” support Trump, but if you are, you should take a look at the numbers. Total registered voters in America is roughly in the 176 million range. Dems garner roughly 29%, the GOP roughly 26%, and when we add the much larger contingent of independents, the Dems increase their advantage slightly. But we’re still talking about roughly half of all Americans, for all parties put together, and Trump has support from well under half of that half.
To be really, really generous, he’s in the 23% range. Clinton’s only slightly higher. So when she made her comment about “basket of deplorables, she was talking about half of that half of that half. Give or take, 12% of the country, roughly. Her “basket of deplorables” referred to just about 12% of Americans.
You will see how far off your numbers are in November. With all the usual democrat vote fraud Trump will have to win by a huge margin just to supposedly squeak by with a win.
Oh, come on, bnw. There is no such thing as voter fraud, beyond a few rare cases. Bush launched a crusade to find it, and came up with roughly a dozen cases out of tens of millions of votes. You want to talk about BS? The entire voter fraud fantasy is BS, designed to add political cover for GOP voter suppression efforts. No one has ever proven that it exists beyond a dozen cases or so per election — and, again, those examples come from right-wing officials bound and determined to find it, and they couldn’t.
Billy_TParticipantI’m confident you will have at least 4 more years of scratching your head. Should be used to it since Trump has been proving your prognostications wrong for the past 15 months. You’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.
bnw, I listen to Trump supporters all the time. I live in the middle of them. And I listen closely. What I never hear is any reason for them to support Trump, or how he would do any of the amazing, utopian things he’s promised you he’d do, like prevent ALL terrorism and add tens of millions of new jobs.
And it’s pretty obvious you and they don’t listen to Trump’s critics. You dismiss it all out of hand. If you were listening, you’d at least attempt to answer the questions I posed.
Can you do that, bnw? Can you answer those very basic questions, honestly, clearly, with details?
I listen to his critics and laugh at their tired BS. They always resort to being what they are, race pimps. The end of PC is at hand.
They’re just repeating what Trump has said and done, verbatim. Not sure why you want to dismiss all of that out of hand.
But the questions I asked you weren’t about race. Can you answer them, please?
-
AuthorPosts
