As A Voter; How Do These Photos Make You Feel? (Poll)

[rightwinger]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

 

[Auld Phart]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

The Clintons have quite a lot in common with prostitutes.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

The Clintons have quite a lot in common with prostitutes.

Trump married one

 

[Auld Phart]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

The Clintons have quite a lot in common with prostitutes.

Trump married one

You got proof she is any more of a prostitute than Hillary?

 

[Arianrhod]

yes-----that dignified bit of black with between the BRIGHT WHITE-----is achievable by the deft hand of a colorist-----
not mother nature.

You've honestly never met anyone with naturally gray hair?

of course I have-----it is usually not BRIGHT WHITE---with even hints of black black -----Clinton did not have black hair

His original color was a dark brunette which, in certain lights, would have looked black. He also started greying fairly young and, as most of us will acknowledge, the Presidency ages every President faster than most jobs would.

Not sure why you're insisting it's "bright white" when it's actually salt-and-pepper (mostly salt, post-Presidency), especially since there are so many other things for your side to hate about him.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

The Clintons have quite a lot in common with prostitutes.

Trump married one

You got proof she is any more of a prostitute than Hillary?

She made money from all those neckid pictures of her on the porn sites.

 

[kaz]

Well? Given the fierce fighting and then the cozy aftermath in DC once the voters have calmed down, how do these photos make you feel?

You forgot an option for "Indifferent." The trouble with too many Americans is that they vote with their feelings rather than information.

Your post suffers from the fallacy that anyone on either side is going to follow up on that information. Tweedledee is lying to you, Tweedledum is lying to them, in the end, they are the same

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

The Clintons have quite a lot in common with prostitutes.

Trump married one

You got proof she is any more of a prostitute than Hillary?

I can't see a former President and current U.S. Senator demeaning themselves by attending the wedding of a Reality TV star to a hooker

 

[kaz]

I see 2 presidents and 2 professional politicians. I see one small fraction of a man named Trump.

Not surprisingly, in the political arena, the pros are winning.

Yes, the pros have done such a great job getting us into this mess, we certainly wouldn't want to trust anyone else to get us out

Yet you're still here in the US. Planes for other nations leave every hour. Please catch one if you think it's a mess here

Of course I'm here. And?

 

[kaz]

Zip. I feel nothing. If those photos move you one way or another, you are a basket case and have no business voting. Please stay home.

Please, politicians on both sides know it's a game. They're lifers who fight a war every two years and then work together to screw the American people in the middle

Most of them aren't out to screw the American people intentionally. It just so happens that the American citizens are collateral damage for their power, money and perk grabs.

It's not personal Sonny, it's just business.

That's exactly the point I keep making, grandpa. What is wrong with you? Why being a dick about it when you agree with me?

 

[Arianrhod]

Well? Given the fierce fighting and then the cozy aftermath in DC once the voters have calmed down, how do these photos make you feel?

You forgot an option for "Indifferent." The trouble with too many Americans is that they vote with their feelings rather than information.

Your post suffers from the fallacy that anyone on either side is going to follow up on that information. Tweedledee is lying to you, Tweedledum is lying to them, in the end, they are the same

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

 

[kaz]

Well? Given the fierce fighting and then the cozy aftermath in DC once the voters have calmed down, how do these photos make you feel?

You forgot an option for "Indifferent." The trouble with too many Americans is that they vote with their feelings rather than information.

Your post suffers from the fallacy that anyone on either side is going to follow up on that information. Tweedledee is lying to you, Tweedledum is lying to them, in the end, they are the same

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

I said the candidates are the same. You came back with saying the media shouldn't tell you what to think on either side. It's a complete non-sequitur to what I said. What difference does the media make in picking between two sides that are in the end the same?

Again, you can agree or disagree with that, but you didn't even grasp it in your response.

So seriously, you read it again and STILL didn't get that? Damn

 

[Auld Phart]

I don't see how the Clinton's could attend the wedding of Trump to a prostitute

The Clintons have quite a lot in common with prostitutes.

Trump married one

You got proof she is any more of a prostitute than Hillary?

I can't see a former President and current U.S. Senator demeaning themselves by attending the wedding of a Reality TV star to a hooker

There's a lot of things you can't see....

Probably because of the location of your head most of the time.

Would you believe it if you read it?

Clinton’s wedding gift to Trump: ‘Nothing’

Clinton’s wedding gift to Trump: ‘Nothing’

 

[Arianrhod]

You forgot an option for "Indifferent." The trouble with too many Americans is that they vote with their feelings rather than information.

Your post suffers from the fallacy that anyone on either side is going to follow up on that information. Tweedledee is lying to you, Tweedledum is lying to them, in the end, they are the same

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

I said the candidates are the same. You came back with saying the media shouldn't tell you what to think on either side. It's a complete non-sequitur to what I said. What difference does the media make in picking between two sides that are in the end the same?

Again, you can agree or disagree with that, but you didn't even grasp it in your response.

So seriously, you read it again and STILL didn't get that? Damn

I don't agree that the candidates are the same. Some of you say that with every election. It's meaningless. Disagreeing with your premise doesn't mean I don't understand it. I just find it too silly to address.

To my point, if you knew enough about the candidates - their past history, their accomplishments, etc. - you'd be able to make an informed decision on something other than "Girls have cooties" or "His hair freaks me out."

So you'll vote for Johnson or you'll opt out. Either is your privilege. No need to make up silly excuses.

 

[kaz]

Your post suffers from the fallacy that anyone on either side is going to follow up on that information. Tweedledee is lying to you, Tweedledum is lying to them, in the end, they are the same

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

I said the candidates are the same. You came back with saying the media shouldn't tell you what to think on either side. It's a complete non-sequitur to what I said. What difference does the media make in picking between two sides that are in the end the same?

Again, you can agree or disagree with that, but you didn't even grasp it in your response.

So seriously, you read it again and STILL didn't get that? Damn

I don't agree that the candidates are the same. Some of you say that with every election. It's meaningless. Disagreeing with your premise doesn't mean I don't understand it. I just find it too silly to address.

To my point, if you knew enough about the candidates - their past history, their accomplishments, etc. - you'd be able to make an informed decision on something other than "Girls have cooties" or "His hair freaks me out."

So you'll vote for Johnson or you'll opt out. Either is your privilege. No need to make up silly excuses.

Well, so you don't think the candidates are the same, so I should vote that way. Pass. I think they are the same so I'll vote for what I want, an actual choice. My vote, my rules

 

[ChrisL]

I feel disgust. That's about it.

 

[Arianrhod]

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

I said the candidates are the same. You came back with saying the media shouldn't tell you what to think on either side. It's a complete non-sequitur to what I said. What difference does the media make in picking between two sides that are in the end the same?

Again, you can agree or disagree with that, but you didn't even grasp it in your response.

So seriously, you read it again and STILL didn't get that? Damn

I don't agree that the candidates are the same. Some of you say that with every election. It's meaningless. Disagreeing with your premise doesn't mean I don't understand it. I just find it too silly to address.

To my point, if you knew enough about the candidates - their past history, their accomplishments, etc. - you'd be able to make an informed decision on something other than "Girls have cooties" or "His hair freaks me out."

So you'll vote for Johnson or you'll opt out. Either is your privilege. No need to make up silly excuses.

Well, so you don't think the candidates are the same, so I should vote that way. Pass. I think they are the same so I'll vote for what I want, an actual choice. My vote, my rules

I think you should think, that's all. Anything else you're pretending to see in my posts is just that...pretense.

 

[ChrisL]

You forgot an option for "Indifferent." The trouble with too many Americans is that they vote with their feelings rather than information.

Your post suffers from the fallacy that anyone on either side is going to follow up on that information. Tweedledee is lying to you, Tweedledum is lying to them, in the end, they are the same

There's no excuse for letting your network of choice tell you what to think when there are so many sources where you can read and compare.

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

I said the candidates are the same. You came back with saying the media shouldn't tell you what to think on either side. It's a complete non-sequitur to what I said. What difference does the media make in picking between two sides that are in the end the same?

Again, you can agree or disagree with that, but you didn't even grasp it in your response.

So seriously, you read it again and STILL didn't get that? Damn

 

[kaz]

Swish. Try reading my post again. You can agree or disagree with my point, but there is no excuse for you not comprehending my point. Ironic given you're advocating people read while you don't read posts you're responding to

In what respect does your reading of my post suggest that I didn't understand your post?

I said the candidates are the same. You came back with saying the media shouldn't tell you what to think on either side. It's a complete non-sequitur to what I said. What difference does the media make in picking between two sides that are in the end the same?

Again, you can agree or disagree with that, but you didn't even grasp it in your response.

So seriously, you read it again and STILL didn't get that? Damn

I don't agree that the candidates are the same. Some of you say that with every election. It's meaningless. Disagreeing with your premise doesn't mean I don't understand it. I just find it too silly to address.

To my point, if you knew enough about the candidates - their past history, their accomplishments, etc. - you'd be able to make an informed decision on something other than "Girls have cooties" or "His hair freaks me out."

So you'll vote for Johnson or you'll opt out. Either is your privilege. No need to make up silly excuses.

Well, so you don't think the candidates are the same, so I should vote that way. Pass. I think they are the same so I'll vote for what I want, an actual choice. My vote, my rules

I think you should think, that's all. Anything else you're pretending to see in my posts is just that...pretense.

I pointed out your post was a non-sequitur. It was

 

[irosie91]

yes-----that dignified bit of black with between the BRIGHT WHITE-----is achievable by the deft hand of a colorist-----
not mother nature.

You've honestly never met anyone with naturally gray hair?

of course I have-----it is usually not BRIGHT WHITE---with even hints of black black -----Clinton did not have black hair

His original color was a dark brunette which, in certain lights, would have looked black. He also started greying fairly young and, as most of us will acknowledge, the Presidency ages every President faster than most jobs would.

Not sure why you're insisting it's "bright white" when it's actually salt-and-pepper (mostly salt, post-Presidency), especially since there are so many other things for your side to hate about him.

nope he had medium brown hair-----and now he has black bits in his snow white hair. I am a registered democrat since
I reached voting age and----now. I voted for him