[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ I disagree with the concept that a person who sees in the Constitution a right to privacy, and within that right, Roe v. Wade is correct, is automatically a person who supports the slaughter of the unborn. Similarly, I disagree that if one finds in the Constitution's "equal protection" clause the right for a same sex couple to enjoy the civil benefits of marriage that person automatically thinks homosexuality is not a sin. Fine distinctions exist, and it isn't simply a matter of "slick talk."

[Granny Bear]

Are you a lawyer, Sombrero?

[Bob Seger]

Are you a lawyer, Sombrero?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?:yikes:

[TheRealThing]

I'm not surprised that the only part of my post you were able to comprehend was the smiley face. CNBC is a Democratic propaganda machine, is it not? So how would you know the article you posted has a lick of accuracy? Not to mention all the times you have used Breitbart as a source.

If anybody has been dodging post after post, it's been you. Dismiss it as vague, dismiss it as an insult, or propaganda. Anything to have to avoid defending yourself.

[Image: https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55302500.jpg]

That's the thing about a runaway ego, no matter how unlikely the source of the emanation, like the ant who asked if he was hurting the elephant, they can be as huge as they are irrelevant. I know what the laugh icon means, your post on the other hand was disconnected and pointless relative to the conversation.

You might carve out a little safe haven for yourself there among your rationalizations, but you will still have to live in the real world and that world will be governed by one of two candidates. Not Daffy, not Darrell or his other brother, and not Gary. That was the point I was trying to make. Contradictions seem to be prevalent on the forum. For example there was that time recently that you promised not to take the dialogue between us about this year's election cycle in the same direction it went with me and Hoot.

[WideRight05]

That's the thing about a runaway ego, no matter how unlikely the source of the emanation, like the ant who asked if he was hurting the elephant, they can be as huge as they are irrelevant. I know what the laugh icon means, your post on the other hand was disconnected and pointless relative to the conversation.

You might carve out a little safe haven for yourself there among your rationalizations, but you will still have to live in the real world and that world will be governed by one of two candidates. Not Daffy, not Darrell or his other brother, and not Gary. That was the point I was trying to make. Contradictions seem to be prevalent on the forum. For example there was that time recently that you promised not to take the dialogue between us about this year's election cycle in the same direction it went with me and Hoot.

Discussion hasn't reached the level it has with you and Hoot, but I'll tell you why I'm doing what I am. Every time I have questioned you on something on here, you have responded with some kind of insult. If you think I'm just going to sit back and let that happen, you're wrong. You've been so emotionally attached to Donald Trump now that you take any criticism of him personal and you dismiss any argument against him as trash can fodder. If someone wants to vote for Donald Trump to keep Hillary out, I don't fault them at all. But myself, I don't have confidence in either candidate based on their positions and their morals at this point, especially Clinton. If me voting for Darrell Castle means I'll be one of only 5,000 or so votes, then so be it. I may not be popular in your eyes, but I don't vote seeking your approval or the approval of anyone else.

Other BGR users have picked up on my points, and I know you're easily smart enough to be able to do so. Your comments about a runaway ego, being disconnected and all that, keep trying to dismiss my points as trash can fodder to avoid having to defend yourself. Wonder what your response will be since there's no smiley face this time.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Discussion hasn't reached the level it has with you and Hoot, but I'll tell you why I'm doing what I am. Every time I have questioned you on something on here, you have responded with some kind of insult. If you think I'm just going to sit back and let that happen, you're wrong. You've been so emotionally attached to Donald Trump now that you take any criticism of him personal and you dismiss any argument against him as trash can fodder. If someone wants to vote for Donald Trump to keep Hillary out, I don't fault them at all. But myself, I don't have confidence in either candidate based on their positions and their morals at this point, especially Clinton. If me voting for Darrell Castle means I'll be one of only 5,000 or so votes, then so be it. I may not be popular in your eyes, but I don't vote seeking your approval or the approval of anyone else.

Other BGR users have picked up on my points, and I know you're easily smart enough to be able to do so. Your comments about a runaway ego, being disconnected and all that, keep trying to dismiss my points as trash can fodder to avoid having to defend yourself. Wonder what your response will be since there's no smiley face this time.

Here's a question: if the Libertarian ticket were reversed, and William Weld was the nominee, would they be polling at 15% by the deadline of 1st debate? I sort of think they would.

[WideRight05]

Here's a question: if the Libertarian ticket were reversed, and William Weld was the nominee, would they be polling at 15% by the deadline of 1st debate? I sort of think they would.

That I am honestly unsure of. Weld would likely be in the same range due to the main candidates not being popular. I do think Johnson will crack 15% at some point because at this point he has a lot of momentum going his way and can pick apart at both candidates. Johnson is still a weaker candidate, in my opinion. Had it not been Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton running against each other, he probably wouldn't have much steam at this point.

[TheRealThing]

Discussion hasn't reached the level it has with you and Hoot, but I'll tell you why I'm doing what I am. Every time I have questioned you on something on here, you have responded with some kind of insult. If you think I'm just going to sit back and let that happen, you're wrong. You've been so emotionally attached to Donald Trump now that you take any criticism of him personal and you dismiss any argument against him as trash can fodder. If someone wants to vote for Donald Trump to keep Hillary out, I don't fault them at all. But myself, I don't have confidence in either candidate based on their positions and their morals at this point, especially Clinton. If me voting for Darrell Castle means I'll be one of only 5,000 or so votes, then so be it. I may not be popular in your eyes, but I don't vote seeking your approval or the approval of anyone else.

Other BGR users have picked up on my points, and I know you're easily smart enough to be able to do so. Your comments about a runaway ego, being disconnected and all that, keep trying to dismiss my points as trash can fodder to avoid having to defend yourself. Wonder what your response will be since there's no smiley face this time.

You got a pedigree in psychological evaluation there Wide, or are you just recognizing the sign posts of ground you've already covered? You've not added anything meaningful to any political or moral discussion, it has been an attempt on your part to make it personal. I don't feel the need to defend points that I have already spoken to and developed on so many occasions.

The fact that McCain, Paul and Romney have injected themselves into this election cycle is unprecedented in American politics during my lifetime. That's new for them and I have thence stopped defending their actions. In no way does that change the topic at hand, which is that one of two people will be moving shortly into the Oval Office. I cite credible personalities who agree with me as does any person I've ever seen whether the medium has been a speech or the written word.

The only way I will change my mind on any of this would be if and when a President Trump is judged on his actions, not the wild eyed speculation and conjecture of his political opponents. Nobody knows what he will do until he does it.

[Granny Bear]

Discussion hasn't reached the level it has with you and Hoot, but I'll tell you why I'm doing what I am. Every time I have questioned you on something on here, you have responded with some kind of insult. If you think I'm just going to sit back and let that happen, you're wrong. You've been so emotionally attached to Donald Trump now that you take any criticism of him personal and you dismiss any argument against him as trash can fodder. If someone wants to vote for Donald Trump to keep Hillary out, I don't fault them at all. But myself, I don't have confidence in either candidate based on their positions and their morals at this point, especially Clinton. If me voting for Darrell Castle means I'll be one of only 5,000 or so votes, then so be it. I may not be popular in your eyes, but I don't vote seeking your approval or the approval of anyone else.

Other BGR users have picked up on my points, and I know you're easily smart enough to be able to do so. Your comments about a runaway ego, being disconnected and all that, keep trying to dismiss my points as trash can fodder to avoid having to defend yourself. Wonder what your response will be since there's no smiley face this time.

Here is how it shakes down for me. Trump was not my first choice. I don't want to speak for TRT or Seger, but I don't believe he was their first choice either. However, he WAS the first choice for the Republican Primary.

Now, we are facing the general election with Trump and Clinton. In my opinion, ANY vote not given to Trump is a good thing for Clinton. You know, that a third party isn't going to win, so any votes cast for them is just thrown out the window. Hoot said as much to me 4 years ago when I was a little disenfranchised with the choices for President.

So, I am attempting to find and highlight the better points of the Republican nominee. I resent the Republican party trying to manipulate the system to replace Trump (much like the Dems did to Sanders), and I resent SO MUCH negativity being attributed to Trump. I know he isn't perfect but there are so many rumors and innuendoes floating around. Add the fact that the media favors Clinton, the FBO dismisses criminal actions by Clinton, etc etc; it becomes difficult to impossible to find factual information.

So I am trusting a political novice (which is attractive to me) to surround himself with great choices for cabinet members. He sure has done that during his campaign. AND I thoroughly approve of his vice presidential choice.

I'm really afraid of what will happen if Clinton wins this election. She is so liberal and polarizing. When she was refused a platform in Mingo, WV, she denied ever saying that she would put the coal industry out of business. She recanted that because that was exactly what she had said. So, then she said that she had "mis spoke" and promised to have Bill as a "job czar" to the area.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of that.

So everyone certainly has the right to vote their conscience. Even Trump supporters.



On a different note, I care about the posters of BGR. I don't know why, but I do. I know many of you on a personal level. I get tickled at you guys all the time, and I hate it when a debate gets personal, but such is life. We are all adults, even tho some of us don't act like it, and life happens.

I take very little that's posted on here personal. Sometimes I get a little firey but most of the time I don't even think about it.

So, as is everyone's right, vote your conscience.

[WideRight05]

You got a pedigree in psychological evaluation there Wide, or are you just recognizing the sign posts of ground you've already covered? You've not added anything meaningful to any political or moral discussion, it has been an attempt on your part to make it personal. I don't feel the need to defend points that I have already spoken to and developed on so many occasions.

The fact that McCain, Paul and Romney have injected themselves into this election cycle is unprecedented in American politics during my lifetime. That's new for them and I have thence stopped defending their actions. In no way does that change the topic at hand, which is that one of two people will be moving shortly into the Oval Office. I cite credible personalities who agree with me as does any person I've ever seen whether the medium has been a speech or the written word.

The only way I will change my mind on any of this would be if and when a President Trump is judged on his actions, not the wild eyed speculation and conjecture of his political opponents. Nobody knows what he will do until he does it.

I don't know why anyone would defend the actions of McCain, Ryan, and Romney in the first place, but that matters little to me. At least I've covered the ground - I've tried who knows how many times to get you to cover the ground, and you still won't do it. Your only arguments have been trying to use Trump winning the vote of the people and/or big name Republicans that have supported him. And you say you cite credible personalities? Come on man, you tried to use Chris Christie and Sarah Palin to encourage me to support Trump. Not to mention, if I disagree with you on something you instantly try to attack my credibility instead of the topic at hand. But, that has been the typical reaction of most of Trump's base. Same as their master.

[WideRight05]

Here is how it shakes down for me. Trump was not my first choice. I don't want to speak for TRT or Seger, but I don't believe he was their first choice either. However, he WAS the first choice for the Republican Primary.

Now, we are facing the general election with Trump and Clinton. In my opinion, ANY vote not given to Trump is a good thing for Clinton. You know, that a third party isn't going to win, so any votes cast for them is just thrown out the window. Hoot said as much to me 4 years ago when I was a little disenfranchised with the choices for President.

So, I am attempting to find and highlight the better points of the Republican nominee. I resent the Republican party trying to manipulate the system to replace Trump (much like the Dems did to Sanders), and I resent SO MUCH negativity being attributed to Trump. I know he isn't perfect but there are so many rumors and innuendoes floating around. Add the fact that the media favors Clinton, the FBO dismisses criminal actions by Clinton, etc etc; it becomes difficult to impossible to find factual information.

So I am trusting a political novice (which is attractive to me) to surround himself with great choices for cabinet members. He sure has done that during his campaign. AND I thoroughly approve of his vice presidential choice.

I'm really afraid of what will happen if Clinton wins this election. She is so liberal and polarizing. When she was refused a platform in Mingo, WV, she denied ever saying that she would put the coal industry out of business. She recanted that because that was exactly what she had said. So, then she said that she had "mis spoke" and promised to have Bill as a "job czar" to the area.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of that.

So everyone certainly has the right to vote their conscience. Even Trump supporters.



On a different note, I care about the posters of BGR. I don't know why, but I do. I know many of you on a personal level. I get tickled at you guys all the time, and I hate it when a debate gets personal, but such is life. We are all adults, even tho some of us don't act like it, and life happens.

I take very little that's posted on here personal. Sometimes I get a little firey but most of the time I don't even think about it.

So, as is everyone's right, vote your conscience.

Clinton’s supporters would say the same thing, that any vote not given to Clinton is a vote for Trump. So, you could say it either way. I’m doing what I think is best, although take note my vote is not finalized at this point. You know what I think about Clinton, but I also don’t have the confidence in Trump to cast a vote for him.

The media, yes, I agree Granny, they are biased against Trump. It still doesn’t excuse some of his actions, but none of what I believe comes from the media. It comes from his speeches, from Twitter, his website, from studying his positions and the lack of confidence in him to develop a consistent position on most issues. The best source of information, Granny, if you’re not watching it live on C-SPAN, go to (1) Full YouTube videos of a candidate's speeches and/or interviews, and (2) the candidate's website. Best way you can get an understanding of a candidate.

I expected if a non-establishment candidate such as Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or Paul won that they would probably have a bit of trouble getting support from people such as McCain or Romney. So it's pretty easy to cut Trump some slack in that area. With Trump, though, I feel like he has brought some of the heat on himself with some unnecessary attacks toward them at times.

I feel confident Trump wasn’t the first choice of Seger, I know it was for TRT though, as much as tries to act like it wasn’t. Go back and read his posts, well before the primary was close to being decided. He is also on record here stating that he didn’t even vote in the most important primary in the history of our country.

I’m not the least bit mad at TRT, as it may seem in your eyes. I certainly stand my ground and I do think he made a bad decision in the primary, but I like TRT. It’s nothing personal.

Lastly, again, if you vote Trump and feel it’s the right thing to do to keep Hillary out, I don’t fault you. When I speak of Trump supporters, I'm not speaking of the ones that are holding their noses to vote for him merely to keep Hillary Clinton out.

Regardless of who the politician is, when you see a group of people become so attached to one (as we saw with Barack Obama) to the point where they can do no wrong then that sets of dangerous precedent. Donald Trump has a cult-like following which is bad in many ways. This movement is not about Christian or conservative values, it's about Donald Trump - which is a dangerous tone to have because just like with Barack Obama, many of Trump's supporters will flip their views to whatever Trump is feeling.

[WideRight05]

⬆⬆ I disagree with the concept that a person who sees in the Constitution a right to privacy, and within that right, Roe v. Wade is correct, is automatically a person who supports the slaughter of the unborn. Similarly, I disagree that if one finds in the Constitution's "equal protection" clause the right for a same sex couple to enjoy the civil benefits of marriage that person automatically thinks homosexuality is not a sin. Fine distinctions exist, and it isn't simply a matter of "slick talk."

I hate to do three posts in a row but I realize I had left this one out. It's much more than just privacy rights. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been such a thunderous applause at the DNC when someone bragged about having her abortion. You have an entire political party that is seeking to keep abortion, essentially murder, legalized on demand and force taxpayer funding of it through repealing the Hyde Amendment. Not just taxpayer funding, but Churches, Christian organizations, anybody and everybody paying their dime to fund it.

Abortions have been legalized nationwide since 1973 and we have, sadly, lost well over 50 million babies. We're very close to approaching the death total of WWII in abortions. This "safe, legal, and rare" path we have taken isn't working.

Regarding LGBT "rights," if this were just a civil thing then we wouldn't see the constant promotion and parading of this nationwide. It doesn't take a person being religious to see that this is something that should not be promoted in the public square. Homosexuality/transgenderism tend to trigger health problems from a mental perspective and can lead to diseases. People say the Churches are the ones forcing their views on the public, if anything the LGBT groups are the ones flaunting their sex lives in the public square wanting to punish anybody who dare opposes their viewpoint on homosexuality/transgenderism. There is a push in California to legalize teaching this to kids starting in second grade, you have some schools that have faced backlash for trying to teach LGBT "rights" as early as preschool. Whether it's pushing Churches/pastors to have to perform homosexual "weddings," requiring Churches (e.g. Iowa) to have gender-neutral restrooms and use gender-neutral language at their events, or punishing the man in NY that refused to use his property for one of these "weddings,' the LGBT movement has been out of control and will continue to do so until a serious stand is taken.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ The actions of the advocates are irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the practice (same sex marriage).

Churches do not pay taxes. I am unaware of any church or minister being forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.

After Roe v. Wade, all manner of judicial and legislative strategies have been employed to "shrink" the decision's impact at the state and federal level. In my view, the cheers were not, "You had an abortion, hurray," but rather a response to affirmation (symbolically) of Roe v. Wade.

[TigerBlues]

Urban Sombero why the name change from "TheRillVille" ?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Urban Sombero why the name change from "TheRillVille" ?

This was addressed when I first joined BGR. I have never donned that username, do not know anyone who has. "Urban Sombrero" is the only name I have "operated under" on BGR, and I have not been a member all that long.

[TheRealThing]

I don't know why anyone would defend the actions of McCain, Ryan, and Romney in the first place, but that matters little to me. At least I've covered the ground - I've tried who knows how many times to get you to cover the ground, and you still won't do it. Your only arguments have been trying to use Trump winning the vote of the people and/or big name Republicans that have supported him. And you say you cite credible personalities? Come on man, you tried to use Chris Christie and Sarah Palin to encourage me to support Trump. Not to mention, if I disagree with you on something you instantly try to attack my credibility instead of the topic at hand. But, that has been the typical reaction of most of Trump's base. Same as their master.

If you don't know why anyone would defend their actions, why all the effort expended in busting my chops for calling them out for their hypocrisy? I've laid out my case extensively enough (on this forum) so that I am confident if put all together, would be nearly paperback in size and scope. In fact, I just laid out my case yet again in this very thread in post #14.

I've cited everybody from General Jack Keane, to John Bolton, and frankly if you don't mind too much my having said it, people like Dr Robert Jeffress and Christ Christie are certainly no light weights. Especially in consideration of their accomplishments in this life, and in further consideration of their chief critic in this thread at least, which would seem to be you. Which BTW, is not a slam against your credibility when I choose to take their perspective, or my own, over yours. Sarah acted a little bizarre and I already called her out for it months back.

I told you why I support Trump, if you can't see your way clear to support him by all means feel free to go your own way. I don't believe you have to agree with those who have posted on the matter on here, in trying to point out that only one of two people will be in the White House come January. It is to me, anything but a toss up impact-wise, between the two candidates. And where I'm concerned, you certainly don't have to feel put upon by me for us to agree on a darn thing. I'd much rather you did, but that would have to be your choice. I've always heard if someone can talk you into something, another can talk you right back out of it. And I've got a sneaking suspicion if Trump is elected, by this time next year you'll feel different about him.

In any case, it should be my decision how much time and effort I devote to you by way of explanation as to why I support any particular candidate. In your case, I feel I have gone to great lengths to do that over time because of our friendship.

[TheRealThing]

Clinton’s supporters would say the same thing, that any vote not given to Clinton is a vote for Trump. So, you could say it either way. I’m doing what I think is best, although take note my vote is not finalized at this point. You know what I think about Clinton, but I also don’t have the confidence in Trump to cast a vote for him.

The media, yes, I agree Granny, they are biased against Trump. It still doesn’t excuse some of his actions, but none of what I believe comes from the media. It comes from his speeches, from Twitter, his website, from studying his positions and the lack of confidence in him to develop a consistent position on most issues. The best source of information, Granny, if you’re not watching it live on C-SPAN, go to (1) Full YouTube videos of a candidate's speeches and/or interviews, and (2) the candidate's website. Best way you can get an understanding of a candidate.

I expected if a non-establishment candidate such as Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or Paul won that they would probably have a bit of trouble getting support from people such as McCain or Romney. So it's pretty easy to cut Trump some slack in that area. With Trump, though, I feel like he has brought some of the heat on himself with some unnecessary attacks toward them at times.

I feel confident Trump wasn’t the first choice of Seger, I know it was for TRT though, as much as tries to act like it wasn’t. Go back and read his posts, well before the primary was close to being decided. He is also on record here stating that he didn’t even vote in the most important primary in the history of our country.

I’m not the least bit mad at TRT, as it may seem in your eyes. I certainly stand my ground and I do think he made a bad decision in the primary, but I like TRT. It’s nothing personal.

Lastly, again, if you vote Trump and feel it’s the right thing to do to keep Hillary out, I don’t fault you. When I speak of Trump supporters, I'm not speaking of the ones that are holding their noses to vote for him merely to keep Hillary Clinton out.

Regardless of who the politician is, when you see a group of people become so attached to one (as we saw with Barack Obama) to the point where they can do no wrong then that sets of dangerous precedent. Donald Trump has a cult-like following which is bad in many ways. This movement is not about Christian or conservative values, it's about Donald Trump - which is a dangerous tone to have because just like with Barack Obama, many of Trump's supporters will flip their views to whatever Trump is feeling.

Debate rules; If another debate's name is mentioned, he gets to respond.

Whether you believe this or not, I saw something in Ted Cruz that I did not like during the Iowa Straw poll. His staffers told Carson voters that he had pulled out when the timeline demonstrated that they knew the rumor was false. His poll workers pulled the same trick later on in the process in another state. I saw similar lapses by him during the coming months and like it or not, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. To make matters much worse, he then goes to the convention and foments further divide on the floor in his speech, which was meant to make himself look to be above it all. The rumors about him being caustically ambitious seem to have been born out. The good of the country that he says he owes so much to, can evidently just wait until his political foes are disposed of.

I thought Cruz was the bees knees. But that's why we vet people. In the end my expectations about who would win the nomination were correct. You think the primaries were the big deal, I say the general election is the big deal. If the primary was the biggest in the nation's history, what is the general, chopped liver?

[RunItUpTheGut]

Here is how it shakes down for me. Trump was not my first choice. I don't want to speak for TRT or Seger, but I don't believe he was their first choice either. However, he WAS the first choice for the Republican Primary.

Now, we are facing the general election with Trump and Clinton. In my opinion, ANY vote not given to Trump is a good thing for Clinton. You know, that a third party isn't going to win, so any votes cast for them is just thrown out the window. Hoot said as much to me 4 years ago when I was a little disenfranchised with the choices for President.

So, I am attempting to find and highlight the better points of the Republican nominee. I resent the Republican party trying to manipulate the system to replace Trump (much like the Dems did to Sanders), and I resent SO MUCH negativity being attributed to Trump. I know he isn't perfect but there are so many rumors and innuendoes floating around. Add the fact that the media favors Clinton, the FBO dismisses criminal actions by Clinton, etc etc; it becomes difficult to impossible to find factual information.

So I am trusting a political novice (which is attractive to me) to surround himself with great choices for cabinet members. He sure has done that during his campaign. AND I thoroughly approve of his vice presidential choice.

I'm really afraid of what will happen if Clinton wins this election. She is so liberal and polarizing. When she was refused a platform in Mingo, WV, she denied ever saying that she would put the coal industry out of business. She recanted that because that was exactly what she had said. So, then she said that she had "mis spoke" and promised to have Bill as a "job czar" to the area.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of that.

So everyone certainly has the right to vote their conscience. Even Trump supporters.



On a different note, I care about the posters of BGR. I don't know why, but I do. I know many of you on a personal level. I get tickled at you guys all the time, and I hate it when a debate gets personal, but such is life. We are all adults, even tho some of us don't act like it, and life happens.

I take very little that's posted on here personal. Sometimes I get a little firey but most of the time I don't even think about it.

So, as is everyone's right, vote your conscience.

All very good points.
Biggest thing I disagree with is Hillary is no 'liberal' by today's standards. She's a racist woman from Arkansas who is a world class panderer who takes any opportunities she sees and if it means more votes or going further left, she will easily change her position on anything which is what makes her dangerous.
Her first 4 years is not where the trouble lies, it's the second term for which the liberals will become so far left on the political spectrum that she will change her tune to whatever she needs to win them over again in 4 years if necessary. In private, she is without a doubt, a racist, doesn't like gays at all, and is as evil and corrupt as any political ever before. She is the epitome of Frank Underwood off of house of Cards without the likeability factor. She is also different in that instead of complete power she is more favorable to the all mighty dollar. Her policies would further destroy neighborhoods like Detroit and put the final dagger in the black community. They may not come back after another 4 years of dem policies, which is there intention anyways.
While the media and there goons trash Trump on a daily basis, I personally believe he is not those things in any form or fashion. There is one clear choice this November and from the looks of it, I think people are finally getting it. The debates is where most independents will be won and I think they despise HRC. Time will tell how big of a lead Trump will open up before November, but he just needs to keep fueling that anger and distrust. To destroy the MSM shoukd be the top priority so that elections can no longer be rigged in favor of mentally ill liberals.
The time is now. AND it's time for DJT

[WideRight05]

I’m not going to quote you, TRT (to save room) but am responding to your prior two posts.

For the one about Cruz, for sake of this I will go along with you and agree with all of that – even though I don’t buy it because you were pro-Trump long before that whole thing in Iowa ever happened. Honestly, it looked as if you were lying in wait for Cruz to do something so you could turn against him. Cruz turns out bad, but then you go with….Donald Trump? Out of all of the other candidates? That’s why I have a difficult time taking that seriously. You had 15 other options, and with two or three of them I know you could have found one that would have been credible. I just can’t take that seriously, complaining about Cruz’s lack of integrity in this process and then turning around and supporting Donald Trump. Then you even go on to call Trump a great man in another thread so like many of Trump’s supporters, you are blinded to him.

Nice try on twisting my quote about the primary, your hope being, of course, to get me to defend myself on that so you can dodge having not voted. And you’re the one who often tells us how we are going to be held accountable for our vote.

Now I’ll respond to post #46.

What you laid out in post #14, is pretty much the selling points for the reasons anybody would vote Republican. You mentioned similar issues in another thread. I never said anything related to Keane or Bolton, or even Jeffress, but the only one you mentioned to me of the three was Jeffress. As for Christie, you’ve complimented him quite well lately – but pre-Trump, you even devoted a thread to bashing his positions. Sarah is bizarre, but the fact is you did try to use her to convince me to support Trump.

Yes, it will only be one of the two candidates unless Johnson happens to go on a tear, which I don’t see happening – and even then I wouldn’t vote for him. I feel we have determined the direction we want to go. The Democrats want to go hardcore to the left, and the Republicans want to go toward the center, as evidenced by Donald Trump winning overwhelmingly. If I had confidence in Trump holding a consistent position and in his character, then I would cast a vote for him. Not to mention, the supporters of this movement are doing the exact same things – even to other conservatives – that you and I and many others on this board complained about with Obama’s supporters. Mitt Romney was flawed, but this one is really pushing it.

One important aspect of unity is around principles. If you go through issue after issue, you easily find agreement. This movement with Trump isn’t about principles – it’s about Donald Trump. That’s why I think that, while it may be booming now, it will be short-lived and that’s even if Trump gets elected. There’s just too much of an emotional attachment to Donald Trump amongst his supporters, which is dangerous.

If you vote for Donald Trump, that won’t lead to a problem in terms of how we get along. I have other friends doing the same thing, friends on this board, who have decided to hold their nose and do so. I’ve gone the direction I have, because if I attack Donald Trump you take it as an insult toward you and often respond in like, attacking my sources and often dismissing my knowledge because of my youth. I’m not mad, but you can bet I’ll fire back when that happens. Regarding Trump, we’ll just have to disagree.

[Granny Bear]

All very good points.
Biggest thing I disagree with is Hillary is no 'liberal' by today's standards. She's a racist woman from Arkansas who is a world class panderer who takes any opportunities she sees and if it means more votes or going further left, she will easily change her position on anything which is what makes her dangerous.
Her first 4 years is not where the trouble lies, it's the second term for which the liberals will become so far left on the political spectrum that she will change her tune to whatever she needs to win them over again in 4 years if necessary. In private, she is without a doubt, a racist, doesn't like gays at all, and is as evil and corrupt as any political ever before. She is the epitome of Frank Underwood off of house of Cards without the likeability factor. She is also different in that instead of complete power she is more favorable to the all mighty dollar. Her policies would further destroy neighborhoods like Detroit and put the final dagger in the black community. They may not come back after another 4 years of dem policies, which is there intention anyways.
While the media and there goons trash Trump on a daily basis, I personally believe he is not those things in any form or fashion. There is one clear choice this November and from the looks of it, I think people are finally getting it. The debates is where most independents will be won and I think they despise HRC. Time will tell how big of a lead Trump will open up before November, but he just needs to keep fueling that anger and distrust. To destroy the MSM shoukd be the top priority so that elections can no longer be rigged in favor of mentally ill liberals.
The time is now. AND it's time for DJT

LOVE House of Cards!!!!!!

[TheRealThing]

I’m not going to quote you, TRT (to save room) but am responding to your prior two posts.

1) For the one about Cruz, for sake of this I will go along with you and agree with all of that – even though I don’t buy it because you were pro-Trump long before that whole thing in Iowa ever happened. Honestly, it looked as if you were lying in wait for Cruz to do something so you could turn against him. Cruz turns out bad, but then you go with….Donald Trump? Out of all of the other candidates? That’s why I have a difficult time taking that seriously.

2) Nice try on twisting my quote about the primary, your hope being, of course, to get me to defend myself on that so you can dodge having not voted. And you’re the one who often tells us how we are going to be held accountable for our vote.

Now I’ll respond to post #46.

3) What you laid out in post #14, is pretty much the selling points for the reasons anybody would vote Republican. You mentioned similar issues in another thread. I never said anything related to Keane or Bolton, or even Jeffress, but the only one you mentioned to me of the three was Jeffress.

4) Yes, it will only be one of the two candidates unless Johnson happens to go on a tear, which I don’t see happening –
There’s just too much of an emotional attachment to Donald Trump amongst his supporters, which is dangerous.

5) I’ve gone the direction I have, because if I attack Donald Trump you take it as an insult toward you and often respond in like, attacking my sources and often dismissing my knowledge because of my youth. I’m not mad, but you can bet I’ll fire back when that happens. Regarding Trump, we’ll just have to disagree.

1) How does one agree with something and at the same time not buy it? Understand, being friends does not mean you get to standardize all the rules of that friendship. I saw all of the other candidates racing to get their politically correct house in order during the debates; In what looked to me like an emergency effort to try and become competitive with Trump, the driving force behind all of that were the polls. So we don't share your high regard for the other 15 former candidates. All but Christie and Rand Paul that is, they stayed the course and lost, but at least they did not compromise. I criticized Christie for the big hug after Hurricane Sandy but he did tell his critics he had a state to rebuild. Still, in no way does that affect my opinion on his ability to be an effective US Attorney General. Which BTW, I pointed out as soon as he came out in endorsement of Mr Trump.

2) Some people vote and keep their mouth shut about who they vote for. I on the other hand have faced the jeers of my peers in a very contentious union work environment, calling out the hypocrisy of the Dems since the days of Ronald Reagan. Most don't do that because they are unwilling to take the heat or possibly even the threats. I served my country in time of war and carved out my little slice of Americana with my own two hands. Like it or not, you will be held accountable for your vote. I for one, am proud of every one I have cast. And laying aside the unthinkably unforeseen, you can bet your last dime (before Hillary taxes it out of you) that I will be there to vote for Donald J. Trump.

3) I thought the larger point was pretty clear. I've quoted a large number of people. I still say Sarah is a smart woman, she just left off from quoting Scripture to talking about having enough balls to do whatever. That to me was bizarre.

4) I've gone into detail about this before, several times in fact and as recently as post 14 in this thread. Trump supporters are not mindless mushrooms under some kind of dangerous spell and I hardly think you've particularly or unilaterally cornered the market on reality. Although I will cede to you that many millions of Americans love the lie rather than the truth.

5) I understand every ram has to rise to the top. You made posts which were intended to challenge my statements, while saying things like I was under a cultlike spell or that I was being a petulant child. Or as was just demonstrated, you basically but politely said I was being dishonest by mischaracterizing your quote.

Maybe the pupil can just sort of throw a switch and in a mere fraction of a second become the prof, or maybe he can't. And nobody is saying you have to agree with me, but as I continue to point out. Where you see a wolf in sheep's clothing with Trump, I do not. Trying to guess your way around Trump's pragmatic discourse is just not something I can make myself to do. And again, nobody can say they know for a fact that he will not govern as he says he will.

As I type this, and again using the manufactured Khisr Khan fallacy as a backdrop. President Barack Obama is on TV telling the Republican Party at large, it is time for them to tell Trump enough is enough, and throw him over for Hillary. In the run up to 2012, the lies used against Romney rose to a level not seen prior to that day. With the 2016 election a mere 90ish days away, the 2012 example has been made to look like child's play in comparison. Everything done the past 8 years rides on Hillary getting elected and she knows the media and all the major players will do whatever they can to make it happen. And BTW, Mr Obama cited the comments of Paul Ryan and John McCain in support of his argument to that end. Who knows, they may all be headed out for a round of golf and dinner tonight. Now I'm really glad I spoke out against them, before the fallout had a chance to materialize.

[WideRight05]

1) How does one agree with something and at the same time not buy it? Understand, being friends does not mean you get to standardize all the rules of that friendship. I saw all of the other candidates racing to get their politically correct house in order during the debates; In what looked to me like an emergency effort to try and become competitive with Trump, the driving force behind all of that were the polls. So we don't share your high regard for the other 15 former candidates. All but Christie and Rand Paul that is, they stayed the course and lost, but at least they did not compromise. I criticized Christie for the big hug after Hurricane Sandy but he did tell his critics he had a state to rebuild. Still, in no way does that affect my opinion on his ability to be an effective US Attorney General. Which BTW, I pointed out as soon as he came out in endorsement of Mr Trump.

2) Some people vote and keep their mouth shut about who they vote for. I on the other hand have faced the jeers of my peers in a very contentious union work environment, calling out the hypocrisy of the Dems since the days of Ronald Reagan. Most don't do that because they are unwilling to take the heat or possibly even the threats. I served my country in time of war and carved out my little slice of Americana with my own two hands. Like it or not, you will be held accountable for your vote. I for one, am proud of every one I have cast. And laying aside the unthinkably unforeseen, you can bet your last dime (before Hillary taxes it out of you) that I will be there to vote for Donald J. Trump.

3) I thought the larger point was pretty clear. I've quoted a large number of people. I still say Sarah is a smart woman, she just left off from quoting Scripture to talking about having enough balls to do whatever. That to me was bizarre.

4) I've gone into detail about this before, several times in fact and as recently as post 14 in this thread. Trump supporters are not mindless mushrooms under some kind of dangerous spell and I hardly think you've particularly or unilaterally cornered the market on reality. Although I will cede to you that many millions of Americans love the lie rather than the truth.

5) I understand every ram has to rise to the top. You made posts which were intended to challenge my statements, while saying things like I was under a cultlike spell or that I was being a petulant child. Or as was just demonstrated, you basically but politely said I was being dishonest by mischaracterizing your quote.

Maybe the pupil can just sort of throw a switch and in a mere fraction of a second become the prof, or maybe he can't. And nobody is saying you have to agree with me, but as I continue to point out. Where you see a wolf in sheep's clothing with Trump, I do not. Trying to guess your way around Trump's pragmatic discourse is just not something I can make myself to do. And again, nobody can say they know for a fact that he will not govern as he says he will.

As I type this, and again using the manufactured Khisr Khan fallacy as a backdrop. President Barack Obama is on TV telling the Republican Party at large, it is time for them to tell Trump enough is enough, and throw him over for Hillary. In the run up to 2012, the lies used against Romney rose to a level not seen prior to that day. With the 2016 election a mere 90ish days away, the 2012 example has been made to look like child's play in comparison. Everything done the past 8 years rides on Hillary getting elected and she knows the media and all the major players will do whatever they can to make it happen. And BTW, Mr Obama cited the comments of Paul Ryan and John McCain in support of his argument to that end. Who knows, they may all be headed out for a round of golf and dinner tonight. Now I'm really glad I spoke out against them, before the fallout had a chance to materialize.

1. Man, talk about twisting my words. How does one not agree with something and at the same time not buy it? You know what I was saying. But considering maybe you didn’t bother to read it, I was stating that I would agree with everything you said about Ted Cruz for purposes of this paragraph. I can’t take it seriously when you pick at one candidate for their integrity and then becomes Donald Trump's other mouth. But of course, you know what I meant.

You again twisted my words on the other 15 candidates. Where did I say I liked them all? If you didn’t like Ted Cruz there were other candidates that would have defended what you believe in well. Of course, I’m not surprised you didn’t do your research on them considering you have admitted multiple times to not understanding Trump, sure some of that group were duds but at least with Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, they were somewhat consistent on their approach. More than Trump.

Let me refresh your memory on Chris Christie, pre-Donald. Of course, your opinion of him changed once he announced his support for Donald Trump. Your opinion of any politician changes once they announce their support for him.

Last night while working in the garage I heard Bill O'Reilly make what I thought was a very telling statement. According to him (paraphrased), all Republicans will have to morph into the Chris Christie political model to have any chance of being elected. Therefore one must be accepting of amnesty for illegals, gay rights ad nauseam and of course to endorse the continued slaughter of the unborn innocents. But, here's what caused my jaw to drop. He referred to conservatives who believe the rash of Godlessness evidenced in recent legislation in such matters as "ZEALOTS."

2. I’m not huge on the union battles but I understand what you’re since you were there, but one thing I do have to deal with is being a young business professional that is conservative socially. That is not easy, even in a smaller town. Regarding accountability for your vote, if Christianity is about who we vote for, do you think you will be held accountable for not voting in the primary?

3. Sarah’s claim to fame was running for VP, and even at that she has no backbone, often caving to pressure be it in the media or with legislation. If I were Trump, I wouldn’t trust her. For the past five years she has been all about Cruz and Rubio – until they were against Trump, when she turned on them and blasted them to no end. IMO she has played a role in the wedge in the Republican Party. But my point being, if I’m Donald Trump I try to avoid her. I think she’s more of a hurt than a help, and if his ratings, like most presidents, sink to 35% or lower at one point during their presidency’s she will do to him just what she did to Cruz and Rubio. Heck, if the campaign trail gets bad she may turn on him.

4. You wrote out some Republican talking points in that post, stuff that the party has said for a while now. You don’t think most of Trump’s supporters are mindless mushrooms, even after seeing a lot of their actions? Very few of them are capable of defending their candidate. The most many of them can do is point to the polls or say that he's not Hillary. Big deal. Barack Obama won in the polls, and I’m sure if Bill Clinton ran again in 2000 after that affair was exposed he would have probably won in the polls. You go on at the end to say that I’m the one trying to “guess my way around Trump’s pragmatic discourse” – but you’re to talk there considering you blasted your trumpet for this guy for several months without a clue as to what he really represents. I’ll say one thing about George Pataki, at least we know he is pro-choice and for LGBT “rights.” Or well, at least I do. I highly doubt you researched much about the other candidates considering you have dogged all of them. There were some solid ones in that group.

5. Yes, I intended to challenge your statements in those threads and you responded with insults. I do think you were/are under a cult-like spell and I do think you acted like a petulant child in how you responded to me on those threads when all I did was try to discuss the issues. My mistake was holding back on commenting because I was concerned at the time because of the way things were going with Hoot. But I won't deal with it. Thus, if you choose to do that I will respond in like with plenty of corn dogs.

You seem to think that just because I’m younger, I can tell you think I’m supposed to be some kind of lemming that goes along with what you think, as you keep trying to bring up on here. All the more reason I feel confident that I’m making a good decision by voting for Darrell Castle. My mind might change, I’m taking it slow at this point. The situation with Khan, McCain, Ryan, as well as the one with the Richard Hanna will have little weight in my decision.

[TheRealThing]

1. Man, talk about twisting my words. How does one not agree with something and at the same time not buy it? You know what I was saying. But considering maybe you didn’t bother to read it, I was stating that I would agree with everything you said about Ted Cruz for purposes of this paragraph. I can’t take it seriously when you pick at one candidate for their integrity and then becomes Donald Trump's other mouth. But of course, you know what I meant.

You again twisted my words on the other 15 candidates. Where did I say I liked them all? If you didn’t like Ted Cruz there were other candidates that would have defended what you believe in well. Of course, I’m not surprised you didn’t do your research on them considering you have admitted multiple times to not understanding Trump, sure some of that group were duds but at least with Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, they were somewhat consistent on their approach. More than Trump.

Let me refresh your memory on Chris Christie, pre-Donald. Of course, your opinion of him changed once he announced his support for Donald Trump. Your opinion of any politician changes once they announce their support for him.



2. I’m not huge on the union battles but I understand what you’re since you were there, but one thing I do have to deal with is being a young business professional that is conservative socially. That is not easy, even in a smaller town. Regarding accountability for your vote, if Christianity is about who we vote for, do you think you will be held accountable for not voting in the primary?

3. Sarah’s claim to fame was running for VP, and even at that she has no backbone, often caving to pressure be it in the media or with legislation. If I were Trump, I wouldn’t trust her. For the past five years she has been all about Cruz and Rubio – until they were against Trump, when she turned on them and blasted them to no end. IMO she has played a role in the wedge in the Republican Party. But my point being, if I’m Donald Trump I try to avoid her. I think she’s more of a hurt than a help, and if his ratings, like most presidents, sink to 35% or lower at one point during their presidency’s she will do to him just what she did to Cruz and Rubio. Heck, if the campaign trail gets bad she may turn on him.

4. You wrote out some Republican talking points in that post, stuff that the party has said for a while now. You don’t think most of Trump’s supporters are mindless mushrooms, even after seeing a lot of their actions? Very few of them are capable of defending their candidate. The most many of them can do is point to the polls or say that he's not Hillary. Big deal. Barack Obama won in the polls, and I’m sure if Bill Clinton ran again in 2000 after that affair was exposed he would have probably won in the polls. You go on at the end to say that I’m the one trying to “guess my way around Trump’s pragmatic discourse” – but you’re to talk there considering you blasted your trumpet for this guy for several months without a clue as to what he really represents. I’ll say one thing about George Pataki, at least we know he is pro-choice and for LGBT “rights.” Or well, at least I do. I highly doubt you researched much about the other candidates considering you have dogged all of them. There were some solid ones in that group.

5. Yes, I intended to challenge your statements in those threads and you responded with insults. I do think you were/are under a cult-like spell and I do think you acted like a petulant child in how you responded to me on those threads when all I did was try to discuss the issues. My mistake was holding back on commenting because I was concerned at the time because of the way things were going with Hoot. But I won't deal with it. Thus, if you choose to do that I will respond in like with plenty of corn dogs.

You seem to think that just because I’m younger, I can tell you think I’m supposed to be some kind of lemming that goes along with what you think, as you keep trying to bring up on here. All the more reason I feel confident that I’m making a good decision by voting for Darrell Castle. My mind might change, I’m taking it slow at this point. The situation with Khan, McCain, Ryan, as well as the one with the Richard Hanna will have little weight in my decision.

I didn't even read this, I'm done with the whole deal.