Breaking Alert: 20,000 Massachusetts Democrats Quit Party To Vote For Trump

[rdean]

And like that, suddenly 20,000 Democrats become racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobes.

Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party

From your link.

Galvin said the state could see as many as 700,000 voting in tomorrow’s Republican primary, a significant number given just 468,000 people are actually registered Republicans.

Hilarious!

Wait till the General Election. Republicans may be afraid of Trump, but Hillary isn't. Trump may beat pussies like Cruz and Rubio, but a cougar like Hillary will tear out that fake hair, one orange fistful at a time. And scratch off that spray on.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's what you liberals have been about since the "Woodstock generation". You simply can't achieve your communist "utopia" without circumvention of the Constitution.

Circumventing the constitution....according to who? Remember, both you and Roberts were contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And anyone who mistook the constitution for an exhaustive list of rights clearly hasn't read the 9th or 14th amendments.

And again, you were simply wrong. You guaranteed us that you knew the future. You confidently insisted that the Supreme Court would rule against same sex marriage. And you didn't know what you were talking about.

But this time its different, huh?

I enjoyed Robert's dissent in it's entirety and he was completely right. However, I actually prefer this:

"Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”

My point EXACTLY - people like you are more than willing to turn this country over to long-hair judges that have hated this country since the day they were born. Now, keep this in mind: as long as these clowns rule in YOUR favor - all is great. And that is what you assholes are banking the future on - that you can stack the country full of clown justices that will serve at YOUR will. In other words - a judicial tyranny. However, I caution you - things rarely turn out the way you expect.

You are fooling no one.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I just heard that four Trump voters caught their votes going to Rubio. Something fishy going on in 4 states. Rubio shouldn't win a single state. Any other result and we'll know his camp took the lowest of all roads possible. CHEATING. Boo.

 

[Skylar]

That's what you liberals have been about since the "Woodstock generation". You simply can't achieve your communist "utopia" without circumvention of the Constitution.

Circumventing the constitution....according to who? Remember, both you and Roberts were contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And anyone who mistook the constitution for an exhaustive list of rights clearly hasn't read the 9th or 14th amendments.

And again, you were simply wrong. You guaranteed us that you knew the future. You confidently insisted that the Supreme Court would rule against same sex marriage. And you didn't know what you were talking about.

But this time its different, huh?

I enjoyed Robert's dissent in it's entirety and he was completely right. However, I actually prefer this:

And Roberts was contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The authoritative arbiters of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court said this:

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution."

Protecting fundamental liberties and intimate personal choices is what I want the Supreme Court doing. And as is often true of conservatives, in any contest of fundamental liberties that you can't shoot vs. the power of the State.....they always prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th.

I correctly predicted the court's ruling on this matter. Not just the ruling, but the likely spread, who would write the judgment and what legal basis the ruling would use.

You were perfectly wrong, failing each such tests. And instead of admit that your prediction of certainty was certainly wrong.....you give us excuses for why you didn't know what you were talking about.

If Trump doesn't win....what will your excuses be then? As you've already demonstrated the predictive value of your prognostications.

 

[NightFox]

And like that, suddenly 20,000 Democrats become racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobes.

Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party

The Democrats best shot at winning the Presidency is for the GOP to nominate Trump, so of course you're going to have Democrats switching parties on their voter registerations in order to vote for him in the GOP primaries.

 

[boilermaker55]

Holy Hell. 20,000 is 0.0000286% of the population> What is the voting population of Mass.
And who says all the 20,000 were registered democrats. The press and the the "truthful" teabaggers are so reliable.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's what you liberals have been about since the "Woodstock generation". You simply can't achieve your communist "utopia" without circumvention of the Constitution.

Circumventing the constitution....according to who? Remember, both you and Roberts were contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And anyone who mistook the constitution for an exhaustive list of rights clearly hasn't read the 9th or 14th amendments.

And again, you were simply wrong. You guaranteed us that you knew the future. You confidently insisted that the Supreme Court would rule against same sex marriage. And you didn't know what you were talking about.

But this time its different, huh?

I enjoyed Robert's dissent in it's entirety and he was completely right. However, I actually prefer this:

And Roberts was contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The authoritative arbiters of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court said this:

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution."

Protecting fundamental liberties and intimate personal choices is what I want the Supreme Court doing. And as is often true of conservatives, in any contest of fundamental liberties that you can't shoot vs. the power of the State.....they always prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th.

I correctly predicted the court's ruling on this matter. Not just the ruling, but the likely spread, who would write the judgment and what legal basis the ruling would use.

You were perfectly wrong, failing each such tests. And instead of admit that your prediction of certainty was certainly wrong.....you give us excuses for why you didn't know what you were talking about.

If Trump doesn't win....what will your excuses be then? As you've already demonstrated the predictive value of your prognostications.

Where the HELL do you get the idea that I am a Trump supporter? All I said - and I stand by it, is that NO MATTER whom the republican candidate is - they will wipe the floor with the criminal's ass.

As far as my "prognostications" go - you can shove them up your ass sideways. I'm sure they will fit easily. ******* hippie.

 

[Skylar]

Where the HELL do you get the idea that I am a Trump supporter? All I said - and I stand by it, is that NO MATTER whom the republican candidate is - they will wipe the floor with the criminal's ass.

Actually, you said this:

Well, let me make this clear - I don't care for Trump - but there is no way in hell Hillary can win over him - he will beat the snot out of her.

And as I pointed out with your perfect failure in predicting Obergefell.......you insisting that you know the future doesn't have the best track record.

 

[boilermaker55]

randie...settle down you are having a little fit and someone will have to hold your tongue so you dont try and swallow it.
Settle randie.

That's what you liberals have been about since the "Woodstock generation". You simply can't achieve your communist "utopia" without circumvention of the Constitution.

Circumventing the constitution....according to who? Remember, both you and Roberts were contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And anyone who mistook the constitution for an exhaustive list of rights clearly hasn't read the 9th or 14th amendments.

And again, you were simply wrong. You guaranteed us that you knew the future. You confidently insisted that the Supreme Court would rule against same sex marriage. And you didn't know what you were talking about.

But this time its different, huh?

I enjoyed Robert's dissent in it's entirety and he was completely right. However, I actually prefer this:

And Roberts was contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The authoritative arbiters of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court said this:

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution."

Protecting fundamental liberties and intimate personal choices is what I want the Supreme Court doing. And as is often true of conservatives, in any contest of fundamental liberties that you can't shoot vs. the power of the State.....they always prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th.

I correctly predicted the court's ruling on this matter. Not just the ruling, but the likely spread, who would write the judgment and what legal basis the ruling would use.

You were perfectly wrong, failing each such tests. And instead of admit that your prediction of certainty was certainly wrong.....you give us excuses for why you didn't know what you were talking about.

If Trump doesn't win....what will your excuses be then? As you've already demonstrated the predictive value of your prognostications.

Where the HELL do you get the idea that I am a Trump supporter? All I said - and I stand by it, is that NO MATTER whom the republican candidate is - they will wipe the floor with the criminal's ass.

As far as my "prognostications" go - you can shove them up your ass sideways. I'm sure they will fit easily. ******* hippie.

 

[J.E.D]

From the op link:

Secretary of State William Galvin said more than 16,300 Democrats have shed their party affiliation and become independent voters since Jan. 1, while nearly 3,500 more shifted to the MassGOP

Another failure of a thread brought to you by Steve_McDumbass

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's what you liberals have been about since the "Woodstock generation". You simply can't achieve your communist "utopia" without circumvention of the Constitution.

Circumventing the constitution....according to who? Remember, both you and Roberts were contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And anyone who mistook the constitution for an exhaustive list of rights clearly hasn't read the 9th or 14th amendments.

And again, you were simply wrong. You guaranteed us that you knew the future. You confidently insisted that the Supreme Court would rule against same sex marriage. And you didn't know what you were talking about.

But this time its different, huh?

I enjoyed Robert's dissent in it's entirety and he was completely right. However, I actually prefer this:

And Roberts was contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The authoritative arbiters of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court said this:

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution."

Protecting fundamental liberties and intimate personal choices is what I want the Supreme Court doing. And as is often true of conservatives, in any contest of fundamental liberties that you can't shoot vs. the power of the State.....they always prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th.

I correctly predicted the court's ruling on this matter. Not just the ruling, but the likely spread, who would write the judgment and what legal basis the ruling would use.

You were perfectly wrong, failing each such tests. And instead of admit that your prediction of certainty was certainly wrong.....you give us excuses for why you didn't know what you were talking about.

If Trump doesn't win....what will your excuses be then? As you've already demonstrated the predictive value of your prognostications.

Where the HELL do you get the idea that I am a Trump supporter? All I said - and I stand by it, is that NO MATTER whom the republican candidate is - they will wipe the floor with the criminal's ass.

Actually, you said this:

Well, let me make this clear - I don't care for Trump - but there is no way in hell Hillary can win over him - he will beat the snot out of her.

And as I pointed out with your perfect failure in predicting Obergefell.......you insisting that you know the future doesn't have the best track record.

I will stand by my statement. I believe Trump is a modern day PT Barnum and nothing more - however, Hillary is a murderer and a criminal. Now - who the hell would YOU vote for.

That's what I thought. You couldn't care less about "morals" because you have none. As long as it accomplishes your ultimate goal of turning what is left of this great country into a further joke - you don't care.

Here's where you make your mistake, however. You seem to forget that there are nearly 350 MILLION Americans in this country that will be going to the polls, and unlike the Romney debacle - they intend to vote, rather than stay at home. You idiots on the left have FINALLY (it took too long) awakened this country.

Now - mark this statement and keep it close to you. REGARDLESS of whom the republicans put forth - they will beat the living shit out of that evil son-of-a-***** Clinton. It will look like the George McGovern debacle. Take that to the bank. Mark the tape, keep this in Email, whatever the hell it is that will make you remember this - she will get the shit kicked out of her worthless ass.

 

[Skylar]

That's what you liberals have been about since the "Woodstock generation". You simply can't achieve your communist "utopia" without circumvention of the Constitution.

Circumventing the constitution....according to who? Remember, both you and Roberts were contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And anyone who mistook the constitution for an exhaustive list of rights clearly hasn't read the 9th or 14th amendments.

And again, you were simply wrong. You guaranteed us that you knew the future. You confidently insisted that the Supreme Court would rule against same sex marriage. And you didn't know what you were talking about.

But this time its different, huh?

I enjoyed Robert's dissent in it's entirety and he was completely right. However, I actually prefer this:

And Roberts was contradicted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The authoritative arbiters of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court said this:

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution."

Protecting fundamental liberties and intimate personal choices is what I want the Supreme Court doing. And as is often true of conservatives, in any contest of fundamental liberties that you can't shoot vs. the power of the State.....they always prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th.

I correctly predicted the court's ruling on this matter. Not just the ruling, but the likely spread, who would write the judgment and what legal basis the ruling would use.

You were perfectly wrong, failing each such tests. And instead of admit that your prediction of certainty was certainly wrong.....you give us excuses for why you didn't know what you were talking about.

If Trump doesn't win....what will your excuses be then? As you've already demonstrated the predictive value of your prognostications.

Where the HELL do you get the idea that I am a Trump supporter? All I said - and I stand by it, is that NO MATTER whom the republican candidate is - they will wipe the floor with the criminal's ass.

Actually, you said this:

Well, let me make this clear - I don't care for Trump - but there is no way in hell Hillary can win over him - he will beat the snot out of her.

And as I pointed out with your perfect failure in predicting Obergefell.......you insisting that you know the future doesn't have the best track record.

I will stand by my statement. I believe Trump is a modern day PT Barnum and nothing more - however, Hillary is a murderer and a criminal. Now - who the hell would YOU vote for.

Between Trump and Hillary? Obviously Hillary. Of the two of them, she's the one not calling for the commission of war crimes. And call Hillary a 'murderer' all you like. You can't back the claim up.

That's what I thought. You couldn't care less about "morals" because you have none. As long as it accomplishes your ultimate goal of turning what is left of this great country into a further joke - you don't care.

So concerned about 'morals', your solution is to vote for the serial liar calling for the commission of war crimes?

Huh. I don't think 'morals' means what you think it means.

Here's where you make your mistake, however. You seem to forget that there are nearly 350 MILLION Americans in this country that will be going to the polls, and unlike the Romney debacle - they intend to vote, rather than stay at home. You idiots on the left have FINALLY (it took too long) awakened this country.

You....you realize that there aren't 350 million Americans. Nor are anywhere near that number eligible to vote in the next election.

Right?

Now - mark this statement and keep it close to you. REGARDLESS of whom the republicans put forth - they will beat the living shit out of that evil son-of-a-***** Clinton. It will look like the George McGovern debacle. Take that to the bank. Mark the tape, keep this in Email, whatever the hell it is that will make you remember this - she will get the shit kicked out of her worthless ass.

I'll keep it right where I keep your assurances about the Obergefell ruling.

 

[Faun]

What? HW bush was going to sign NAFTA it was already passed but he lost to Bill so bill signed it.

Only liberals back then were against NAFTA and the Iraq war too btw

You may be too young to remember but I certainly am not. Yes, Bush pushed NAFTA but with the make up of congress it would never have seen the light of day. Clinton pushed for NAFTA like no other legislation, not even his wife's illegal health care.

View attachment 65390

Clinton in Final Push for NAFTA : Trade: The President tells a small-business group that prosperity hinges on pact with Mexico and Canada. The vote will be close, as lawmakers slowly take sides.

So you can plainly see why I call WJC the worse president of my time. Nothing was done without his wife's influence. Time to get rid of the man and his wife, who almost single handedly helped destroyed the middle class.

So that is why I say, get rid of the Bushes and the Clintons. The Unions said that anyone supporting NAFTA would be punished, now is the time to end it.

Sorry, I simply do not agree with or believe in the GOP's economic phylosophies. They'll have to prove me wrong and that means whoever I support loses and then the Republicans win me over. But not one Republican has won me over. Not Rick Snyder in my state and not any national Republicans.

Trump is like a Libertarian or Tea Bagger. Just the same old bad Republican policies with a twist.

If you guys want to take over the Democratic party come join us and vote Bernie. Don't ask us to vote Trump.

But if Trump wins I will wish him my best and hope he delivers. It won't be me who fights him.

You can not look around and say that the economic policies of the democrats are really working that well. Remember they took over BEFORE the economic downturn which was turned into the longest and weakest recovery in history.

As I said, if you want the status quo, vote Mrs. Tulusza Clinton. I don't. I don't particularly want Trump but he is the most anti-establishment canidate that we have had in quite awhile.

Tell us what the Democrats did in 2007 to cause the downturn.

Be specific. Legislation, dates, times, etc.

or...shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

They did nothing. Even when warned.

The start of the depression that Obama "saved" us from was at the end of 2008, almost two years after the democrats took over. And if someone wants to feed more manure to the lemmings, even if it start in 2006 the democrats DID NOTHING.

What could they do? They weren't in control of the Congress when the vast majority of toxic loans, which ultimately led to the utter collapse of the economy, we're being written. Republicans were.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You may be too young to remember but I certainly am not. Yes, Bush pushed NAFTA but with the make up of congress it would never have seen the light of day. Clinton pushed for NAFTA like no other legislation, not even his wife's illegal health care.

View attachment 65390

Clinton in Final Push for NAFTA : Trade: The President tells a small-business group that prosperity hinges on pact with Mexico and Canada. The vote will be close, as lawmakers slowly take sides.

So you can plainly see why I call WJC the worse president of my time. Nothing was done without his wife's influence. Time to get rid of the man and his wife, who almost single handedly helped destroyed the middle class.

So that is why I say, get rid of the Bushes and the Clintons. The Unions said that anyone supporting NAFTA would be punished, now is the time to end it.

Sorry, I simply do not agree with or believe in the GOP's economic phylosophies. They'll have to prove me wrong and that means whoever I support loses and then the Republicans win me over. But not one Republican has won me over. Not Rick Snyder in my state and not any national Republicans.

Trump is like a Libertarian or Tea Bagger. Just the same old bad Republican policies with a twist.

If you guys want to take over the Democratic party come join us and vote Bernie. Don't ask us to vote Trump.

But if Trump wins I will wish him my best and hope he delivers. It won't be me who fights him.

You can not look around and say that the economic policies of the democrats are really working that well. Remember they took over BEFORE the economic downturn which was turned into the longest and weakest recovery in history.

As I said, if you want the status quo, vote Mrs. Tulusza Clinton. I don't. I don't particularly want Trump but he is the most anti-establishment canidate that we have had in quite awhile.

Tell us what the Democrats did in 2007 to cause the downturn.

Be specific. Legislation, dates, times, etc.

or...shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

They did nothing. Even when warned.

The start of the depression that Obama "saved" us from was at the end of 2008, almost two years after the democrats took over. And if someone wants to feed more manure to the lemmings, even if it start in 2006 the democrats DID NOTHING.

What could they do? They weren't in control of the Congress when the vast majority of toxic loans, which ultimately led to the utter collapse of the economy, we're being written. Republicans were.

2 names for you: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Both Democrats.

 

[Faun]

You can not look around and say that the economic policies of the democrats are really working that well. Remember they took over BEFORE the economic downturn which was turned into the longest and weakest recovery in history.

Now this is downright ignorant.

The derivatives which blew up all over the planet were built on three year and five year variable mortgages all over the planet, dumb shit.

And the democrats in charge of the committees that oversees such things did what? Scream at the regulators that there was nothing wrong? yeppers that is what they did oh so forgetful one.

Do you truly not understand that those toxic loans were written years before the economy collapsed in 2008? During that period, Democrats didn't control a single committee in Congress.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, I simply do not agree with or believe in the GOP's economic phylosophies. They'll have to prove me wrong and that means whoever I support loses and then the Republicans win me over. But not one Republican has won me over. Not Rick Snyder in my state and not any national Republicans.

Trump is like a Libertarian or Tea Bagger. Just the same old bad Republican policies with a twist.

If you guys want to take over the Democratic party come join us and vote Bernie. Don't ask us to vote Trump.

But if Trump wins I will wish him my best and hope he delivers. It won't be me who fights him.

You can not look around and say that the economic policies of the democrats are really working that well. Remember they took over BEFORE the economic downturn which was turned into the longest and weakest recovery in history.

As I said, if you want the status quo, vote Mrs. Tulusza Clinton. I don't. I don't particularly want Trump but he is the most anti-establishment canidate that we have had in quite awhile.

Tell us what the Democrats did in 2007 to cause the downturn.

Be specific. Legislation, dates, times, etc.

or...shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

They did nothing. Even when warned.

The start of the depression that Obama "saved" us from was at the end of 2008, almost two years after the democrats took over. And if someone wants to feed more manure to the lemmings, even if it start in 2006 the democrats DID NOTHING.

What could they do? They weren't in control of the Congress when the vast majority of toxic loans, which ultimately led to the utter collapse of the economy, we're being written. Republicans were.

2 names for you: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Both Democrats.

Neither of whom belonged to the party in control of the Congress when the toxic loans were being written.

 

[L.K.Eder]

what's the white skinny on this? 20.000 massholes wooed by the best words, had by trump?

 

[Faun]

Hillary is a murderer and a criminal.

LOLOLOLOL

You righties crack me up. Thanks!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Hillary is a murderer and a criminal.

LOLOLOLOL

You righties crack me up. Thanks!

So she didn't stand by and watch as 4 men were killed as a direct result of her inaction?

She didn't illegally hide travel records and illegally profit from insider trading?

Oh, that's right...it's fine when she does those things - as long as no one else does.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hillary is a murderer and a criminal.

LOLOLOLOL

You righties crack me up. Thanks!

So she didn't stand by and watch as 4 men were killed as a direct result of her inaction?

She didn't illegally hide travel records and illegally profit from insider trading?

Oh, that's right...it's fine when she does those things - as long as no one else does.

not as long as anyone other then a democrat does it