Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Isn't that truth. sheesh. they should worried over Hillary that she might get in as Obama the second just in a pantsuit.Trump's got all you limp wristed lefties scared shitless. This is getting more entertaining by the day.
Isn't that truth. sheesh. they should worried over Hillary that she might get in as Obama the second just in a pantsuit.Trump's got all you limp wristed lefties scared shitless. This is getting more entertaining by the day.
Let me join you
Bla bla bla
My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?
My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?
There's no stretch in recognizing that Trump is using that history and tendency to manipulate people, nor is there a stretch in blaming him for doing so.
Post a quote of Trump calling for protesters to be carried out on stretchers.What violence? Please site specific valid sources. In which Democratic campaigns in recent history has there been violence at the candidates' campaign events? Which Democratic contenders have called for violent, pugilistic put down of protesters, have called for them being carried out of the facility on stretchers?My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?
My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?
There's no stretch in recognizing that Trump is using that history and tendency to manipulate people, nor is there a stretch in blaming him for doing so.
Stop crashing Trump rallies......problem solved.
Trump is honest.My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
And just how does Obama differ from Trump?
-Geaux
My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?
There's no stretch in recognizing that Trump is using that history and tendency to manipulate people, nor is there a stretch in blaming him for doing so.
Stop crashing Trump rallies......problem solved.
Ah, yes. The solution is to sit down, shut up, and stop exercising one's First Amendment rights to protest. I do so love how Donald Trump has infected pseudo-conservatives with libthink. The abuse is YOUR fault, for daring to oppose us. Can't imagine why you don't just vote for Hillary, with that attitude.
Nice try, but that's not calling for anyone to use violence. Back to the drawing board.Post a quote of Trump calling for protesters to be carried out on stretchers.What violence? Please site specific valid sources. In which Democratic campaigns in recent history has there been violence at the candidates' campaign events? Which Democratic contenders have called for violent, pugilistic put down of protesters, have called for them being carried out of the facility on stretchers?My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?
In February, as a protester was being escorted out of a rally in Las Vegas, Trump said: "I'd like to punch him in the face."
"I love the old days," Trump said. "You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks."
Donald Trump rallies are turning violent
Let the excuse-making begin.
Your opinion (which isn't worth a shit).Trump is honest.My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
And just how does Obama differ from Trump?
-Geaux
Only about being a lunatic, and I don't know that he's doing that on purpose.
About everything else, he's a pandering bullshitter.
No, it doesn't mean shit. I pointed out the difference between an opinion and a threat. Trump gave an opinion. You idiots are calling it a threat out of desperation. You are idiots.Yes, it most certainly does.Does it matter?
You are the one lacking in understanding and comprehension. You don't see the forest for the trees. It is suggestion and manipulation on his part. He is playing you folks like a fiddle.
You might want to take a look at both parties because they are both playing the American Citizens like a fiddle and the Democrats are masters at it.
We always knew the left played their followers like fiddles, and even that they deliberately dumbed as many people down as they possibly could to facilitate that.
Now we have a candidate from the same playbook, and the geniuses salivating over him are actually HAPPY that he's doing it, oddly enough while remaining oblivious to the fact that he's doing it to THEM, as well.
"If I don't get what I want... I think there will be riots"
"If you don't do what I say, there will be hell to pay"
"Nice house you have there .... it would be a shame if something were to.. you know, happen to it"
These are not "opinions"; those are threats disguised as technical opinions. At the least, wishful thinking when they're uttered by the entity who's in control of whether those things happen or not.
Same as --
"they better be careful -- they have a lot to hide!"
--- is demonstrably NOT an opinion of concern on the welfare of the Ricketts family.
Who's the "idiot" now?
And by the way, true to his thinskinned petty petulance, Rump is now threatening to run attack ads against the Chicago Cubs.
Get that? The whining child wants to run ads against a baseball team. That's how meltdown-fragile that growth-stunted ego is.
What the hell does it take to pull away from the Kool Aid and smell what's going on?
Trump never said any of those things, that's the spins & twists, not what he actually said.
Why is it that Trump's, twitter is not an actual twitter quote like the reporters is?
Pssst - an actual twitter account quote has the little blue bird at the top like hers and says follow.
Having just the one link about that reporters twitter with trump seems to be about a conversation right in the middle of something else going on so I don't see how anyone can judge about the baseball team unless a person has been following this in sports.
The first was a paraphrase; the next two lines were examples to illustrate the point.
But the line "they better be careful -- they have a lot to hide!" is absolutely Rump's words. And it refers to the Chicago Cubs owners. That was still-yet-more tweet whining from the thinskinned Boss of Butthurt. As another baseball guy said, "you could look it up".
I hate that I'm agreeing with you.
I know, right? It feels icky.
But when you're right, you're right, and in this case you're spot on, and I won't hesitate to give credit where due.
You were a worthy adversary and you're a worthier ally, so .... keep 'em coming.
Life was simpler when I could just hate liberals and think they were dumb. But when you're invaded by criminally insane zombies, I guess you take whatever allies are still human.
As to this whole "It wasn't a threat because it wasn't blatant and coated in neon" argument . . .
If one of Trump's mobster friends says, "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse", have you been threatened?
No, it doesn't mean shit. I pointed out the difference between an opinion and a threat. Trump gave an opinion. You idiots are calling it a threat out of desperation. You are idiots.Yes, it most certainly does.
You are the one lacking in understanding and comprehension. You don't see the forest for the trees. It is suggestion and manipulation on his part. He is playing you folks like a fiddle.
You might want to take a look at both parties because they are both playing the American Citizens like a fiddle and the Democrats are masters at it.
We always knew the left played their followers like fiddles, and even that they deliberately dumbed as many people down as they possibly could to facilitate that.
Now we have a candidate from the same playbook, and the geniuses salivating over him are actually HAPPY that he's doing it, oddly enough while remaining oblivious to the fact that he's doing it to THEM, as well.
There you go. Wouldn't want to go an entire thread without massaging the egos of your nutbag pals.
Simple facts. The left attracts more highly educated people than does the Right. The Left promotes increases in educational opportunity. Dumbing down the populace is the conservative game plan. Please stick to the topic of this thread. HOW TRUMP IS PLAYING REPUBLICANS LIKE A FIDDLE.
Thanks.
The violence happens because there are assholes out there that want to deny free speech because they feel morally superior. If Trump did anything to pull them in then good, they need a good ass kicking so they can grow as a human being. It's part of life and they've been sheltered from it.My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.
Follow me through this.
We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.
We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?
I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.
And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?
(continued in the next post)
He played the media like a fiddle, we aren't the media. Hillary plays her base like a fiddle, never responsible for any of her fuckups, lies or distortions. That's much worse due to the seriousness of the matter.All she's saying is that he's played you like a fiddle.
Goofy as hell but way better than "We have vaginas! Hillary has a vagina! Vote for her!"That's the Donald Drumpf supporter bus. Here's an example of an idiot supporter.
