It's Official: Donald Trump is an Asshole

[Martin Eden Mercury]

op-eds belong in serious literary sections?

There are a few other members here, who like you, posses some very odd notions of what constitutes an op-ed. I suggest you seek each other out. It would be truly fascinating to psychologists and social-anthropologists to see what y'all could come u with together. Maybe you could start with redefining definitions of words in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) , before going on to tackle the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Roget's International Thesaurus, the King James Bible, and maybe even the rules at USMESSAGEBOARD.COM?

thank you saveliberty
sincerely yours
Mem

All I want to know is HOW MUCH ganja did ya have to give Cereal_Killer to get that piece on the USMB "editorial page".. Considering how much defense of Turumph our Dear Leader has tossed out there -- I figured the "editor" would have AT LEAST marked up your title..

Very amusing.



Home? I have no home. Hunted, despised, living like an animal! The jungle is my home.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

So if you think that the rules aren't unfair to outsiders......then you're an idiot.
The rules are specifically designed to get a specific result. The will of the voter is not even a consideration.

The RNC is up to no good, and because of this, they set up rules to assure they stay in power, even when the voters have gotten wise to them.

"No fairness, no peace!" You people are too funny.

The rules were made over a year ago. And the main rules says those rules can be amened, if a majority of the delegates desire it. If you mudwhistle, want to throw around terms like 'idiot' I suggest you tread carefully, lest you expose yourself for all to see.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Worth repeating:

The will of the voter is not even a consideration.

^ That needs fixed.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Worth repeating:

The will of the voter is not even a consideration.

^ That needs fixed.

Of course it is considered, but taking people's preferences into consideration is what you are objecting to. You want outsiders to have all of the say in how political party chooses a nominee to represent them. One word: Nuts!

 

[The Irish Ram]

No, I want delegates to vote for the candidate that won them. It has nothing to do with outsiders.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

No, I want delegates to vote for the candidate that won them. It has nothing to do with outsiders.

But there are rules. You just happen to dislike rules that don't sure with your preferences.

very funny

 

[Statistikhengst]

Violence at political rallies is common in Europe, that gleaming beacon of liberals. Attending a rally as an agitator with an eye to creating violence has become a liberal tool as of late. You own it, you fix it.

That was an out and out lie.

Better luck to you next time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I tried, I could not care less what Donald Trump says as a private citizen; but Donald Trump, the candidate, is not speaking as a private citizen. Donald Trump is speaking as a public, political figure, and it is because of this fact, that I insist we all hold him to a higher standard.

How narrow minded.

Why is he the only one you want to hold to such a high standard? Hillary isn't an angel either. Cliche argument perhaps, but it's also speaks to your irrevocable biases.

What at first glance appears to be a troubling dilemma: citizen's competing rights of free speech and assembly -- is not.

It's quite an issue. It's "rights of free speech and assembly" not the "right to assemble and commit violence freely."

See what I mean? What you see as "peaceful protest" is actually not. Stomping on police cars, shutting down other's rights to free speech and assembly, starting fights, causing riots... not one iota of that is peaceful.

It is an opportunity of choice. We can choose to give in to our own base instincts and passions -- to our own irrational fears, and anger; or we can choose to appeal to the “better angels of our nature.”

Is it? From what I've seen, plenty of people on both sides have done just that, given themselves to their base instincts and passions. It's no longer a choice, but an impulse. A desire.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It sickens me to think some people who I know, who I may love, who I respect, and even admire -- give Donald Trump a pass, on refusing to condemn physical violence at political events.

So, when will you commit to condemning the acts of physical violence which are instigated by members of your own party?

Also, I don't look down on those in my family who I love or those whom I respect and admire, simply for not condemning this, or condemning that. That's their prerogative. Not yours. Not mine. I'm not one to tell other people how to think or act.

What kind of mind refuses to condemn physical violence at political events?

What kind of mind only looks at only one half of the picture?

My liberal principles compel me to defend Donald Trump’s right to be a public jerk.

As evidenced in the previous paragraph, your liberal principles compel you to do no such thing. Your assault on the minds, or rather the judgement, of others who don't condemn what you hope them to condemn only sees to the opposite. I'm not even one third of the way through your "Op-Ed" and your animosity is clearly evident.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suffer no illusions: it is not my intent, to attempt to change anybody’s mind, about wanting to vote for or against a particular candidate.

You contradict yourself. Your entire post thus far has been an attempt to convince the reader that "Trump is an asshole." So far, you have done nothing but make broad based assumptions about those who support the man as a candidate or that fail to uphold the standards you have for Donald Trump.

You have essentially crossed the line from "opinion" to "assertion."

Just as I have a right to protest with speech...

Yes, you do have the right to protest with your speech, by word of mouth, not the forceful blows of hands and feet. Am I sensing a theme here?

The protests outside of Trump’s rallies and events have started getting out of hand. There is no justifiable enough argument for these protests to be viewed as legitimate, political protests, simply because they have not become as violent as those inside.

Violence is violence. There is no greater or lesser violence. Violence occurs when the first punch is thrown. Your attempt to downplay this is truly disheartening.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you disagree with me here, you will find yourself on my side when the day comes -- and it surely will -- when it is you who are the one being denied the right to speak freely -- and to be heard.

Are you being denied any of those things?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I believe I would win because, unlike many nations, we are still a nation of laws, and not of men.

As I was made forcefully made aware a time ago, laws are crafted by men. It is impossible to be "a nation of laws" and not a "nation of men." Men and the laws they craft are inseparable. There is no distinction between the two. Men cannot exist aside from the laws they enact, nor can the laws exist aside from the men who created them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing justifies physical violence at political events. Nothing. And please, please do not try and justify the violence by attempting an equivalence on another side.

Well then that's just too bad. Because both sides are guilty of it, of violence. Nobody is immune to the anger; the ebb and flow of their passions. Even the nicest man, one who could not harm a fly, can be compelled to take out his fly swatter.