Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

[P@triot]

This sums up the rational American people perfectly....

 

[P@triot]

And we all know that neither one of these idiots can keep national security secrets to themselves. Hillary has already proven as much. And we all know Donald's big mouth and ego will prevent him from keeping classified information to himself.

White House says Hillary can handle classified briefings. Trump? Eh.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

 

[P@triot]

And this just further supports the original post....

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

I personally think this speaks volumes. It clearly says that both sides agree they have nominated someone awful. I will largely defend the Democrats on this one - they only had three choices total (and two - Hillary and Bernie - are completely unelectable). Republicans have no excuses though. We had the best field in the history of the party, and even though liberals were showing up in droves to hijack the primary, if Republicans would have acted like true conservatives Trump wouldn't be the nominee.

What a sad statement about the U.S. The rest of the world must be laughing that both sides are only voting simply to block the other side, and not because they actually like their own candidate.

Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll

 

[P@triot]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

No discussion about anything in this society is there. Label, categorize, flame. Ideas and concepts are to tough.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

No discussion about anything in this society is there. Label, categorize, flame. Ideas and concepts are to tough.

Unlike liberals, I am not preventing you from discussing anything. I don't riot and resort to violence when a liberal tries to speak. And spare me they hyper-sensitive "don't label me" battle cry. Labels exist for a reason. They are a vital part of understanding. It's why we label things "mammals", and "reptiles", etc.

Without labels, the world would be a lot more volatile. For instance, if someone is acting really stupid and you are informed that the person is mentally handicapped in some way, you realize it is not their fault. That's a vital label. If someone else is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are high on narcotics, you realize that although the direct action at the moment is not their fault, it is their fault for putting the narcotics in their system. You are going to treat that person different from the mentally handicapped person. Then, if yet another person is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are a liberal, you realize they are stupid by choice and you are going to treat them differently from the mentally handicapped and the drug addict.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

No discussion about anything in this society is there. Label, categorize, flame. Ideas and concepts are to tough.

Unlike liberals, I am not preventing you from discussing anything. I don't riot and resort to violence when a liberal tries to speak. And spare me they hyper-sensitive "don't label me" battle cry. Labels exist for a reason. They are a vital part of understanding. It's why we label things "mammals", and "reptiles", etc.

Without labels, the world would be a lot more volatile. For instance, if someone is acting really stupid and you are informed that the person is mentally handicapped in some way, you realize it is not their fault. That's a vital label. If someone else is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are high on narcotics, you realize that although the direct action at the moment is not their fault, it is their fault for putting the narcotics in their system. You are going to treat that person different from the mentally handicapped person. Then, if yet another person is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are a liberal, you realize they are stupid by choice and you are going to treat them differently from the mentally handicapped and the drug addict.

Great rationalization. Anyone who has other ideas can be dismissed for your declaration of their stupidity, and you of course are always and forever correct. Thought so.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

No discussion about anything in this society is there. Label, categorize, flame. Ideas and concepts are to tough.

Unlike liberals, I am not preventing you from discussing anything. I don't riot and resort to violence when a liberal tries to speak. And spare me they hyper-sensitive "don't label me" battle cry. Labels exist for a reason. They are a vital part of understanding. It's why we label things "mammals", and "reptiles", etc.

Without labels, the world would be a lot more volatile. For instance, if someone is acting really stupid and you are informed that the person is mentally handicapped in some way, you realize it is not their fault. That's a vital label. If someone else is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are high on narcotics, you realize that although the direct action at the moment is not their fault, it is their fault for putting the narcotics in their system. You are going to treat that person different from the mentally handicapped person. Then, if yet another person is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are a liberal, you realize they are stupid by choice and you are going to treat them differently from the mentally handicapped and the drug addict.

Great rationalization. Anyone who has other ideas can be dismissed for your declaration of their stupidity, and you of course are always and forever correct. Thought so.

Not true at all. I'll listen to ideas all day. What I won't listen to is the call to violate the law.

If a person thinks guns should be outlawed - fine. Have that conversation, be honest about your intentions and reasons, and then try to convince the American people to legally amend the U.S. Constitution.

But liberals don't do that. They simply violate the law. And that is why I dismiss them. I would listen all day and discuss anything with anyone so long as they are willing to obey the law. I have no time or sympathy for criminals.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm not really worried about any substantial threats to the empire.

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

No discussion about anything in this society is there. Label, categorize, flame. Ideas and concepts are to tough.

Unlike liberals, I am not preventing you from discussing anything. I don't riot and resort to violence when a liberal tries to speak. And spare me they hyper-sensitive "don't label me" battle cry. Labels exist for a reason. They are a vital part of understanding. It's why we label things "mammals", and "reptiles", etc.

Without labels, the world would be a lot more volatile. For instance, if someone is acting really stupid and you are informed that the person is mentally handicapped in some way, you realize it is not their fault. That's a vital label. If someone else is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are high on narcotics, you realize that although the direct action at the moment is not their fault, it is their fault for putting the narcotics in their system. You are going to treat that person different from the mentally handicapped person. Then, if yet another person is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are a liberal, you realize they are stupid by choice and you are going to treat them differently from the mentally handicapped and the drug addict.

Great rationalization. Anyone who has other ideas can be dismissed for your declaration of their stupidity, and you of course are always and forever correct. Thought so.

Not true at all. I'll listen to ideas all day. What I won't listen to is the call to violate the law.

If a person thinks guns should be outlawed - fine. Have that conversation, be honest about your intentions and reasons, and then try to convince the American people to legally amend the U.S. Constitution.

But liberals don't do that. They simply violate the law. And that is why I dismiss them. I would listen all day and discuss anything with anyone so long as they are willing to obey the law. I have no time or sympathy for criminals.

 

[jwoodie]

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

Demonizing the opposition has been going on during our entire political history.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I've got a $1,000 that says you're a liberal (uh?). They are always so naive about stuff like that.

No discussion about anything in this society is there. Label, categorize, flame. Ideas and concepts are to tough.

Unlike liberals, I am not preventing you from discussing anything. I don't riot and resort to violence when a liberal tries to speak. And spare me they hyper-sensitive "don't label me" battle cry. Labels exist for a reason. They are a vital part of understanding. It's why we label things "mammals", and "reptiles", etc.

Without labels, the world would be a lot more volatile. For instance, if someone is acting really stupid and you are informed that the person is mentally handicapped in some way, you realize it is not their fault. That's a vital label. If someone else is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are high on narcotics, you realize that although the direct action at the moment is not their fault, it is their fault for putting the narcotics in their system. You are going to treat that person different from the mentally handicapped person. Then, if yet another person is acting really stupid, and you are informed they are a liberal, you realize they are stupid by choice and you are going to treat them differently from the mentally handicapped and the drug addict.

Great rationalization. Anyone who has other ideas can be dismissed for your declaration of their stupidity, and you of course are always and forever correct. Thought so.

Not true at all. I'll listen to ideas all day. What I won't listen to is the call to violate the law.

If a person thinks guns should be outlawed - fine. Have that conversation, be honest about your intentions and reasons, and then try to convince the American people to legally amend the U.S. Constitution.

But liberals don't do that. They simply violate the law. And that is why I dismiss them. I would listen all day and discuss anything with anyone so long as they are willing to obey the law. I have no time or sympathy for criminals.

Like I said:

"But liberals don't do that. They simply violate the law. And that is why I dismiss them. I would listen all day and discuss anything with anyone so long as they are willing to obey the law. I have no time or sympathy for criminals."

No conversation, broad brush label and dismiss.

 

[jillian]

This sums up the rational American people perfectly....

*yawn*

 

[jillian]

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

Demonizing the opposition has been going on during our entire political history.

not like this.

but i think drumpf should keep ranting and raving.

cause what worked for his ignoramuses isn't going to work on the rest of the voting public.

 

[P@triot]

This sums up the rational American people perfectly....

*yawn*

Tired this morning J?

 

[Indeependent]

And we all know that neither one of these idiots can keep national security secrets to themselves. Hillary has already proven as much. And we all know Donald's big mouth and ego will prevent him from keeping classified information to himself.

White House says Hillary can handle classified briefings. Trump? Eh.

As opposed to Reagan blurting out his intention to bomb Moscow?
Of course Reagan was joking, but it was an asinine thing for the POTUS to say.

 

[P@triot]

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

Demonizing the opposition has been going on during our entire political history.

not like this.

but i think drumpf should keep ranting and raving.

cause what worked for his ignoramuses isn't going to work on the rest of the voting public.

My dear....it was your side that elected him as the nominee.

I've been saying this for years - liberals create all of the problems in America, and then they cry the loudest about the problems they created.

 

[P@triot]

And we all know that neither one of these idiots can keep national security secrets to themselves. Hillary has already proven as much. And we all know Donald's big mouth and ego will prevent him from keeping classified information to himself.

White House says Hillary can handle classified briefings. Trump? Eh.

As opposed to Reagan blurting out his intention to bomb Moscow?
Of course Reagan was joking, but it was an asinine thing for the POTUS to say.

How is stating intent the same thing as releasing classified information?!?

I know this is shocking to people like you, but....giving your opinion on something is still permitted under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Indeependent]

And we all know that neither one of these idiots can keep national security secrets to themselves. Hillary has already proven as much. And we all know Donald's big mouth and ego will prevent him from keeping classified information to himself.

White House says Hillary can handle classified briefings. Trump? Eh.

As opposed to Reagan blurting out his intention to bomb Moscow?
Of course Reagan was joking, but it was an asinine thing for the POTUS to say.

How is stating intent the same thing as releasing classified information?!?

I know this is shocking to people like you, but....giving your opinion on something is still permitted under the 1st Amendment.

If Obama said such a statement you would throwing hissy fits.

 

[P@triot]

And we all know that neither one of these idiots can keep national security secrets to themselves. Hillary has already proven as much. And we all know Donald's big mouth and ego will prevent him from keeping classified information to himself.

White House says Hillary can handle classified briefings. Trump? Eh.

As opposed to Reagan blurting out his intention to bomb Moscow?
Of course Reagan was joking, but it was an asinine thing for the POTUS to say.

How is stating intent the same thing as releasing classified information?!?

I know this is shocking to people like you, but....giving your opinion on something is still permitted under the 1st Amendment.

If Obama said such a statement you would throwing hissy fits.

Why? He's such a coward, he's embolden our enemies. I would kill to hear him stand up like a real leader just once and threaten to bomb Moscow.

So now that you ran from the question and tried to change the topic - let's get back on track here. How is a person giving their own opinion or intent even remotely the same thing as releasing classified information???