So you'd support a guy who constantly derides nearly everything about this country?
Irony...
Trump - Make America Great Again!
- Thread starter IndySteel
- Start date
- Status
So you'd support a guy who constantly derides nearly everything about this country?
Irony...
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,123
- Reaction score
- 6,015
- Points
- 113
Why not wait until right before the election?
Media bias is nothing new to presidential elections, you had to know it was coming. Nominating a think-skinned narcissist with a penchant for saying crazy inflammatory **** wasn't the right way to go if that was your concern.
If Trump wants Clinton to get more attention and scrutiny, he should get off stage and quit yelling bat **** crazy **** at the top of his lungs.
because someone jumped the gun and ****** up the plan. we went over this.
Crooked Hillary and The Rigged Election
Everybody knows that has been what is happening, but damn this video catches them all red handed.
Illegal alien who has been deported 10 times rapes a 12 year old girl in Kansas.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/10/17/10-times-deported-mexican-man-accused-raping-child-on-greyhound-bus/
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/10/17/10-times-deported-mexican-man-accused-raping-child-on-greyhound-bus/
you're so racist, Indy. How dare you question and judge this man's morals?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,123
- Reaction score
- 6,015
- Points
- 113
Tim was arguing it was a "very particular and planned time".
even in the Super Bowl, we see false starts.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Trick question.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
The gates are wide open
Illegal immigration surged 23 percent over last year
The southwest border has cracked open over the last year as illegal immigrants into the U.S. spiked some 23 percent, according to the latest Homeland Security numbers released Monday.
Nearly 409,000 illegal immigrants were nabbed at the border in fiscal 2016 — up from about 331,000 a year earlier — and Homeland Security officials say the increased arrests also means an increase in the number that are sneaking by them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/illegal-immigration-surged-23-percent-last-year/
What a pitiful "border"
Sheperd Smith bats for the other team. Not surprising...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/17/shepard-smith-fox-news-comes-out-gay-defends-roger-ailes/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/17/shepard-smith-fox-news-comes-out-gay-defends-roger-ailes/
That's been known for years.
Anderson Cooper too.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602968/
Hillary Clinton's physicians "engineered 90 minutes of alertness" for her at the presidential debate, "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams contended in a Tuesday column.
Hillary Clinton's physicians "engineered 90 minutes of alertness" for her at the presidential debate, "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams contended in a Tuesday column.
I've been turning him off for years. He is one of the biggest Trump bashers out there on any network. He is completely one sided and definitely leans well to the left. The only reason he is still on is because he's been there since the beginning.
Good article from the American Renaissance........(I'll post a couple snippets)
The Case for Trump
http://www.amren.com/news/2016/10/the-case-for-trump/
What has always been missing to end the long public career of Hillary Clinton is a four- or five-percentage-point boost from a mélange of the so-called Never Trump Republicans, as well as women and suburban, college-educated independents.
The counterarguments for voting Trump are by now also well known. The daily news–riot, terrorism, scandals, enemies on the move abroad, sluggish growth, and record debt–demands a candidate of change.
The issue, then, at this late date is not necessarily Trump per se, but the fact that he will bring into power far more conservatives than would Hillary Clinton. No one has made a successful argument to challenge that reality.
Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country. A likely two-term Clinton presidency would complete a 16-year institutionalization of serial progressive abuse of the Constitution, outdoing even the twelve years of the imperial Roosevelt administration.
Trump’s defeat would translate into continued political subversion of once disinterested federal agencies, from the FBI and Justice Department to the IRS and the EPA. It would ensure a liberal Supreme Court for the next 20 years–or more.
In this low-bar presidential race, why do conservative establishmentarians and past foreign-policy officials feel a need to publish their support for the Democratic candidate, when their liberal counterparts feel no such urge to distance themselves from their own nominee? Is what Clinton actually did, in leaving Iraq abruptly, or lying about Benghazi, or violating federal security laws, so much less alarming than what Trump might do in shaking up NATO or “bombing the hell out of ISIS”?
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates–the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump–shared Trump’s sense of outrage–or his ability to convey it–over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.
When Trump shoots off his blunderbuss, is it always proof of laziness and ignorance, or is it sometimes generally aimed in the right direction to prompt anxiety and eventual necessary reconsideration? Questioning NATO’s pro forma way of doing business led to furor, but also to renewed promises from NATO allies to fight terror, pony up defense funds, and coordinate more effectively. Deploring unfair trade deals suddenly made Hillary Clinton renounce her prior zealous support of the “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.
The ancient idea of tragic irony can sometimes be described as an outcome unfortunately contrary to what should have been expected. Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were.
The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton–and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.
Here's the complete version
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441126/donald-trump-conservatives-should-vote-president
The Case for Trump
http://www.amren.com/news/2016/10/the-case-for-trump/
What has always been missing to end the long public career of Hillary Clinton is a four- or five-percentage-point boost from a mélange of the so-called Never Trump Republicans, as well as women and suburban, college-educated independents.
The counterarguments for voting Trump are by now also well known. The daily news–riot, terrorism, scandals, enemies on the move abroad, sluggish growth, and record debt–demands a candidate of change.
The issue, then, at this late date is not necessarily Trump per se, but the fact that he will bring into power far more conservatives than would Hillary Clinton. No one has made a successful argument to challenge that reality.
Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country. A likely two-term Clinton presidency would complete a 16-year institutionalization of serial progressive abuse of the Constitution, outdoing even the twelve years of the imperial Roosevelt administration.
Trump’s defeat would translate into continued political subversion of once disinterested federal agencies, from the FBI and Justice Department to the IRS and the EPA. It would ensure a liberal Supreme Court for the next 20 years–or more.
In this low-bar presidential race, why do conservative establishmentarians and past foreign-policy officials feel a need to publish their support for the Democratic candidate, when their liberal counterparts feel no such urge to distance themselves from their own nominee? Is what Clinton actually did, in leaving Iraq abruptly, or lying about Benghazi, or violating federal security laws, so much less alarming than what Trump might do in shaking up NATO or “bombing the hell out of ISIS”?
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates–the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump–shared Trump’s sense of outrage–or his ability to convey it–over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.
When Trump shoots off his blunderbuss, is it always proof of laziness and ignorance, or is it sometimes generally aimed in the right direction to prompt anxiety and eventual necessary reconsideration? Questioning NATO’s pro forma way of doing business led to furor, but also to renewed promises from NATO allies to fight terror, pony up defense funds, and coordinate more effectively. Deploring unfair trade deals suddenly made Hillary Clinton renounce her prior zealous support of the “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.
The ancient idea of tragic irony can sometimes be described as an outcome unfortunately contrary to what should have been expected. Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were.
The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton–and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.
Here's the complete version
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441126/donald-trump-conservatives-should-vote-president
Last edited:
Was that with a coffee ground douche???
The attacks on Trump continue
Trump proposes ethics reform. We need this.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/17/trump-proposes-government-ethics-reforms-it-is-time-to-drain-the-swamp-in-washington-d-c/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/17/trump-proposes-government-ethics-reforms-it-is-time-to-drain-the-swamp-in-washington-d-c/
You think the political elite were against Trump before, just wait till this little Trump tirade gets inside them "hallowed halls" . That's serious money he's messin' with right there.
Lordy, the fur's gonna fly now.
Yeah, that's slapping the corrupt establishment right upside the head.
- Status