Are you voting for Trump?

[kenny]

I am the only PSer w/o a college degree

I'm the other.

I guess only stupid people buy Octavias.
I guess DS2206 is right; on RT she discourages women from getting them, saying they are only for men.

Men ... stupid ... same thing.

Oh, and IMO there is no such thing as 'winning' an argument.

 

[AGBF]

I'm so sick of Bernie bros deciding not to vote, as if that's what Bernie would even want. And yes I think equally as bad is to vote for a write in or 3rd party. Primaries are the time to be idealistic.

I'll go a step farther than you, Niel. I wouldn't have said this if you hadn't posted what you did above. I would have taken the "laissez-faire" approach of "everyone has the right to do as he wishes".

Of course everyone may do as he wishes, but I'm going to say what I think, the way you did. I think that anyone who writes in a vote because he doesn't like Clinton and, therefore, fails to stop Trump is putting a despot into the Oval Office. The people who think that they are too good for Hillary Clinton should think about what despotism means and what an authoritarian régime without the separation of powers would mean to The United States. Think before you throw a way a vote that should be stopping Trump.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Trump can beat HC in Nov. IF he keeps his big mouth shut. All he need to do is keep attacking her about our horrible economy under Prez. Obama, on her foreign policies and her Emails. HC have no defense against these three topics.

 

[NOYFB]

There is really no need for you to be so outraged and scream "read the constitution" at anyone. That's what Facebook is for.

I wish you would take it easy on Karen. She can't help being smart. However, this did make me laugh out loud. I knew there was a reason I never created a Facebook account!

Deb

She can't help being smart? Wow. So you're basically saying that Packie is "not smart" with that statement. I shudder to think what your or Karen would think about my intelligence or political views (that I'm too *smart* to discuss on a public forum).

Do you really want to fight with me?

Since when does my saying that Person A is smart cause me to have said that Person B with whom that person has conversed is the opposite of what the first person is? No, wait. let me guess! In your own universe, where you make the laws of logic!

If I were to tell you that I think you missed Logic 101, I would be at fault, I suppose. Although you were the one who attacked me for no good reason. I adore packrat and know she is smart. She, also, knows that I think she is smart. You, however, appear to be spoiling for an argument.

AGBF

I have no intentions of *fighting* anyone. I'll leave that to the Trump protestors. I was merely defending my friend, who appeared to be being made out to be an unintelligent person by more than one person on this thread. I did not *attack* you. I was just stunned that someone would say such a thing after what was said to my friend, hence why I used the word "Wow". You, however, seemed very quick to use bitter words to *attack* me and insult my intelligence as well. Why such anger?

 

[AGBF]

There is really no need for you to be so outraged and scream "read the constitution" at anyone. That's what Facebook is for.

I wish you would take it easy on Karen. She can't help being smart. However, this did make me laugh out loud. I knew there was a reason I never created a Facebook account!

Deb

She can't help being smart? Wow. So you're basically saying that Packie is "not smart" with that statement. I shudder to think what your or Karen would think about my intelligence or political views (that I'm too *smart* to discuss on a public forum).

Do you really want to fight with me?

Since when does my saying that Person A is smart cause me to have said that Person B with whom that person has conversed is the opposite of what the first person is? No, wait. let me guess! In your own universe, where you make the laws of logic!

If I were to tell you that I think you missed Logic 101, I would be at fault, I suppose. Although you were the one who attacked me for no good reason. I adore packrat and know she is smart. She, also, knows that I think she is smart. You, however, appear to be spoiling for an argument.

I have no intentions of *fighting* anyone. I'll leave that to the Trump protestors. I was merely defending my friend, who appeared to be being made out to be an unintelligent person by more than one person on this thread. I did not *attack* you. I was just stunned that someone would say such a thing after what was said to my friend, hence why I used the word "Wow". You, however, seemed very quick to use bitter words to *attack* me and insult my intelligence as well. Why such anger?

I don't know about you, Lil Misfit, but rather than continue to hash this out, I am willing to start over.

I consider Packrat to be my friend, just as you consider her to be yours.

My comment was actually aimed at Monnie, with whom I have a close relationship. I meant no disrespect to Packrat. If you feel I was disrespectful to you, I apologize.

Would you like some pie?

Deb

 

[NOYFB]

There is really no need for you to be so outraged and scream "read the constitution" at anyone. That's what Facebook is for.

I wish you would take it easy on Karen. She can't help being smart. However, this did make me laugh out loud. I knew there was a reason I never created a Facebook account!

Deb

She can't help being smart? Wow. So you're basically saying that Packie is "not smart" with that statement. I shudder to think what your or Karen would think about my intelligence or political views (that I'm too *smart* to discuss on a public forum).

Do you really want to fight with me?

Since when does my saying that Person A is smart cause me to have said that Person B with whom that person has conversed is the opposite of what the first person is? No, wait. let me guess! In your own universe, where you make the laws of logic!

If I were to tell you that I think you missed Logic 101, I would be at fault, I suppose. Although you were the one who attacked me for no good reason. I adore packrat and know she is smart. She, also, knows that I think she is smart. You, however, appear to be spoiling for an argument.

I have no intentions of *fighting* anyone. I'll leave that to the Trump protestors. I was merely defending my friend, who appeared to be being made out to be an unintelligent person by more than one person on this thread. I did not *attack* you. I was just stunned that someone would say such a thing after what was said to my friend, hence why I used the word "Wow". You, however, seemed very quick to use bitter words to *attack* me and insult my intelligence as well. Why such anger?

I don't know about you, Lil Misfit, but rather than continue to hash this out, I am willing to start over.

I consider Packrat to be my friend, just as you consider her to be yours.

My comment was actually aimed at Monnie, with whom I have a close relationship. I meant no disrespect to Packrat. If you feel I was disrespectful to you, I apologize.

Would you like some pie?

Deb

I prefer cake, actually.

 

[DNB]

While I'm a conservative, I don't support either Hilary or Donald (or Bernie) and I don't know anyone who supports any of them. I'm trying to figure out who has voted for them. I'm also tied of the media drinking the koolaid.

BTW, there are reports that the Trump protestors are paid to be there. Very few people have the time or inclination to protest anything without being paid.

Trump says some stupid things, but Hilary has broken Federal Law and no matter what she "says" she has. I am a Federal employee and i know what the Federal Records Act says as I've been a records manager. She's been parsing words hoping that the uninformed public who doesn't work for the Federal Gov might believe her. This is one of only many lies she has told.

Anyway, my point is, I'm totally dumbfounded as to who I will vote for. DH and I will be on a cruise during the election so we will "early vote" which means I have to decide earlier.

Our system allows politicians to become corrupt, especially those in Congress. They have too many loopholes that the general public doesn't. There have been polioticians who aren't corrupt but the mainstream media destroys them.

 

[AGBF]

Trump says some stupid things, but Hilary has broken Federal Law

That's like saying, "Hitler said some stupid things, but Neville Chamberlain was actually filmed jaywalking!" The "stupid things" that Trump is saying are so corrupt, so evil, so beyond the pale that brave men should SHIVER when they hear him!!

Read this for another opinion on the evil of Trump:

"Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, is waging an open attack on what have long been the party’s core views.

For at least three decades Republican politics have been defined by the centrality of conservatism in the party’s governing philosophy. Modern conservatism has three elements: a commitment to limited government and economic liberty that enables prosperity; moral traditionalism that conserves our capacity for liberty by producing responsible citizens; and a belief that America, confidently and carefully engaged in international affairs, can be a force for good in the world.

Mr. Trump rejects all three.

Over the course of his nearly 70 years, and this primary campaign is no exception, Mr. Trump has shown no real desire to limit the size, cost or reach of the federal government. He has no interest in economic liberty as it has been understood since Adam Smith. He wants an economy in which trade and immigration are tightly restricted and the government makes mercantilist deals on behalf of large domestic producers.

Mr. Trump is the very embodiment of the culture of narcissism and decadence that moral traditionalism exists to counteract. Republicans used to argue that character mattered in our political leaders. But apparently that applied only to Democrats like Bill Clinton. Today, we’re told such considerations are irrelevant, inapposite, quaint. We’re electing a president rather than a pope, after all, so there’s no problem wrapping Republican arms around a moral wreck. At least he’s our moral wreck.

The hypocrisy isn’t lost on anyone.

And Mr. Trump wants America to further retreat from world affairs. He believes the United States is too weak to shape events. Rather than reach out to allies, he wants to bludgeon many of them, even as he has shown a disturbing affinity for tyrants. Mr. Trump also wants Americans to think about global affairs in terms of financial transactions that net America money rather than relationships that promote security, freedom and order — and therefore advance American interests.

Why, then, are Republican leaders and lawmakers unifying behind a man whose views they find offensive? For some, like Mr. Ryan, it is an effort to use his influence to pull Mr. Trump in a more conservative direction. For others, it is simple party loyalty. For still others, it is fear of opposing a winner, the most powerful figure in the Republican Party. And of course many Republicans find Mr. Trump distasteful but believe he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

But the reality is that Republican lawmakers have been put in this position because Mr. Trump was more popular among Republicans than anyone else in the race. He took the lead in the national polls in July 2015 and pretty much never lost it. Those of us who oppose Mr. Trump need to acknowledge that his European-style ethnic nationalism, which relies on stoking grievances, resentments and fear of the other — Mexicans, Muslims, Syrian refugees, the Chinese, etc.— has a powerful sway in the Republican Party today. To be clear, not all of Mr. Trump’s supporters are drawn to his ethnic nationalism. But all of his supporters are willing to accept it.

This is not the conservatism of William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan or Jack Kemp; it is blood-and-soil conservatism primarily aimed at alienated white voters who believe they have lost the country they once knew. Trumpism also includes a heavy dose of conspiracy theories. It is no coincidence that Mr. Trump burst onto the national political scene in 2011 by claiming that Barack Obama, our first black president, was not a natural-born American citizen but rather was born in Kenya.

Mr. Trump knows his target audience, which explains why, beginning the morning of the Indiana primary on May 3 (the day he became the de facto nominee), he has — among other in-the-gutter moments — implied that Senator Ted Cruz’s father was implicated in the assassination of President Kennedy; insinuated that Vince Foster, a friend of the Clintons who was White House deputy counsel, was murdered (five official investigations determined that Mr. Foster committed suicide); engaged in a racially tinged attack on Gonzalo Curiel, a district court judge presiding over a fraud lawsuit against Trump University; and expressed doubt that a Muslim judge could remain neutral in the case. This is conspiratorial craziness and rank racism — and all of it has happened after we were told Mr. Trump would raise his game.

The surprise is that so many Republicans are now expressing consternation at what Mr. Trump is doing. Has any recent presidential candidate ever advertised quite as openly as Mr. Trump the kind of vicious attacks he’d engage in? We were warned in neon lights what was coming. The idea that he will now engage in a “course correction” — that he will flip a switch and transform himself into a decent and dignified man — is laughable. Mr. Trump has repeatedly stated that he won’t change his approach. (“You win the pennant and now you’re in the World Series — you gonna change?”) In this one area, Republicans should take him at his word.

When a narcissist like Mr. Trump is victorious, as he was in the Republican primary, and when he has done it on his terms, he’s not going to listen to outside counsel from people who think they can change the patterns of a lifetime. Republicans have not changed Mr. Trump for the better; he has changed them for the worse.

So here we are, with Republicans who lined up behind Mr. Trump now afraid of being led off a high cliff. If the prospect of a November shellacking isn’t enough to unnerve these Republicans, there’s also this to factor in: What we are talking about is potential generational damage to the Republican Party.

Consider this historical comparison: In 1956 the Republican nominee, Dwight D. Eisenhower, won nearly 40 percent of the black vote. In 1960, Richard Nixon won nearly a third. Yet in 1964, in large part because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, Barry Goldwater (who was no racist) won only 6 percent. More than a half-century later, that figure has remained low. Mr. Trump — through his attacks against Hispanics that began the day he announced his candidacy — is doing with Hispanics today what Senator Goldwater did with black voters in the early 1960s.

The less resistance there is to Mr. Trump now, the more political damage there will be later.

The stain of Trump will last long after his campaign. His insults, cruelty and bigotry will sear themselves into the memory of Americans for a long time to come, especially those who are the targets of his invective.

Mr. Trump is what he is — a malicious, malignant figure on the American political landscape. But Republican primary voters, in selecting him to represent their party, and Republican leaders now rallying to his side, have made his moral offenses their own.

There will be a fearsome price for Republicans to pay for their embrace of Donald Trump. Especially after the attacks on Judge Curiel, Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell, decent men who have already criticized Mr. Trump harshly, should rescind their endorsement of him — as Mr. McConnell just hinted that he might. Mr. Trump’s bigotry should earn him their enmity, not their loyalty."

 

[Dancing Fire]

Deb, Does this mean that you will not vote for Trump? ...

 

[Queenie60]

Deb, Does this mean that you will not vote for Trump? ...

Come on DF???

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

That is one of the best pieces I've read in the election cycle. Thanks Deb. So simple and straightforward.

Annette

 

[Matata]

Interesting analysis of lesser evil voting:

http://johnhalle.com/outragesandinterludes/?p=1065