If his mouth is open....

[320 Years of History]

Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

 

[The Great Goose]

He's refreshing.

 

[Pogo]

February 16, South Carolina:

>> "They were having terrorism problems, just like we do," Trump said, according to an account in the Washington Post. "And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood — you heard that, right? He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem."

.... "This story is a fabrication and has long been discredited," said Brian McAllister Linn, a Texas A&M University historian and author of Guardians of Empire: The U.S. Army and the Pacific, 1902-1940. "I am amazed it is still making the rounds."

Christopher Einolf, a professor at DePaul University and author of America in the Philippines, 1899-1902: The First Torture Scandal, added that he trusted the conclusion of the late military historian Frank E. Vandiver, who told About.com in 2003 that "I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences. This kind of thing would have run completely against his character." <<
​

Just as on this forum, stuff like actual "fact" and "history" isn't the point, and just gets in the way. His purpose is to inflame, incite and divide. The message is entirely and solely emotional.

That's the same objective of the trolls on message boards, and essentially exactly what he's doing. And it explains why he gets attention on a board like this which like any board draws the Fringers. He's one of them.

As I've noted before, if Donald Rump was a poster and USMB was the presidential campaign season, his posts (speeches) would be removed on the basis of "trolling/no content".

 

[The Great Goose]

February 16, South Carolina:

>> "They were having terrorism problems, just like we do," Trump said, according to an account in the Washington Post. "And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood — you heard that, right? He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem."

.... "This story is a fabrication and has long been discredited," said Brian McAllister Linn, .​

​

Bullshit. It happened. Of course it happens.

How else was the anglo-empire maintained?

it happened.

you start shooting border runners on your southern border, you wont need a fence because they'll stop coming.

John Howard (he was a prick) used to just shoot the boats coming to Australia. It wasn't publicized.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's refreshing.

To dullards, bigots, and reprobates, perhaps.

 

[Pogo]

February 16, South Carolina:

>> "They were having terrorism problems, just like we do," Trump said, according to an account in the Washington Post. "And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood — you heard that, right? He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem."

.... "This story is a fabrication and has long been discredited," said Brian McAllister Linn, .​

​

Bullshit. It happened. Of course it happens.

How else was the anglo-empire maintained?

it happened.

you start shooting border runners on your southern border, you wont need a fence because they'll stop coming.

John Howard (he was a prick) used to just shoot the boats coming to Australia. It wasn't publicized.

Link then?

 

[The Great Goose]

February 16, South Carolina:

>> "They were having terrorism problems, just like we do," Trump said, according to an account in the Washington Post. "And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood — you heard that, right? He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem."

.... "This story is a fabrication and has long been discredited," said Brian McAllister Linn, .​

​

Bullshit. It happened. Of course it happens.

How else was the anglo-empire maintained?

it happened.

you start shooting border runners on your southern border, you wont need a fence because they'll stop coming.

John Howard (he was a prick) used to just shoot the boats coming to Australia. It wasn't publicized.

Link then?

It was never published, but Aussies talk.

 

[protectionist]

Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

I would NOT look at those figures because they are Politifact figures. Politifact does not have a grain of credibility. They are a joke.

Trump has said MANY things - all true. Here's a better source of information, that a lot of people need to read >> Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again: Donald J. Trump: 9781501137969: Amazon.com: Books

Here's another >> DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS

 

[Pogo]

February 16, South Carolina:

>> "They were having terrorism problems, just like we do," Trump said, according to an account in the Washington Post. "And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood — you heard that, right? He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem."

.... "This story is a fabrication and has long been discredited," said Brian McAllister Linn, .​

​

Bullshit. It happened. Of course it happens.

How else was the anglo-empire maintained?

it happened.

you start shooting border runners on your southern border, you wont need a fence because they'll stop coming.

John Howard (he was a prick) used to just shoot the boats coming to Australia. It wasn't publicized.

Link then?

It was never published, but Aussies talk.

See what I mean? Historical fact is unimportant. What matters is putting the idea of "kill people" into waiting heads.

 

[Indeependent]

He's refreshing.

To dullards, bigots, and reprobates, perhaps.

And you find low wage and unemployed Blacks refreshing.

 

[320 Years of History]

Link then?

It was never published, but Aussies talk.

 

[protectionist]

To dullards, bigots, and reprobates, perhaps.

The worst bigots in America are Muslims and their Koran. Both heavily supported by Hillary Clinton.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Message:

Look -- I'd LIKE to election topics discussed in CDZone -- but I don't think this is possible by whipping out the "Pants 'O Fire" meter approach in the 1st post.. No reflection on the OP choice of forum -- but this is gonna be a problem -- sooner or later.

So this is going to Elections where the partisan streakers never tred. And MAYBE you can light pants on fire there.

BTW === If ya want a restrained, rational discussion, partner up with someone and go try out the BullRing or the "Structured Debate Forum".. We'd like to see folks use those more.

 

[flacaltenn]

Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

 

[flacaltenn]

Now -- some of the mental midgets -- especially on the Dem side are politicians and EXPECTED to lie. Even revered for the epic nature of their lies. They seem to be UNDER achieving in your OP analysis..

 

[Pogo]

Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??

​

CK gets what I mean.

 

[320 Years of History]

Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

Truly, at this point, I don't even care what the reason is. 92% mostly false, false,and flat out made up, is just too much...at that rate, "why" no longer matters. LOL


You know, I quickly checked to see what the actual quantity of his entirely accurate statements is. He's made two. I haven't looked to see what they are, but I note that the final paragraph in my OP posits, with a tiny bit of tongue in cheek, that his truthful statements are "My name is Donald Trump, and I'm running for President." That constitutes two independent clauses, statements, so I will now go check to see if they are in fact the same two Politifact cites. <winks>

 

[320 Years of History]

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??

​

CK gets what I mean.

Who cares if it's what folks want to hear or not? The thing that matters is that so much of it simply isn't true!

Surely you've heard the saying "Ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies?" With Trump one doesn't even need to ask a question.

Elsewhere on USMB I got into a discussion about Mr. Sanders' remark about Trump being a pathological liar. The discussion centered around the distinction between the lay and clinical meanings of that term. At the time, I hadn't checked to see just how much of what the various candidates have said that is in fact true. Upon doing so and finding that 92% of what Trump says isn't at least mostly true, I can only ask, "Does it really take a trained clinician to tell that the man is indeed a pathological liar?"

 

[Pogo]

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??

​

CK gets what I mean.

Who cares if it's what folks want to hear or not? The thing that matters is that so much of it simply isn't true!

Surely you've heard the saying "Ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies?" With Trump one doesn't even need to ask a question.

Elsewhere on USMB I got into a discussion about Mr. Sanders' remark about Trump being a pathological liar. The discussion centered around the distinction between the lay and clinical meanings of that term. At the time, I hadn't checked to see just how much of what the various candidates have said that is in fact true. Upon doing so and finding that 92% of what Trump says isn't at least mostly true, I can only ask, "Does it really take a trained clinician to tell that the man is indeed a pathological liar?"

That clip is an interesting breakdown of what rhetoric means, specifically around the 3 minute mark --- O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected.

True enough, but what does that mean? It means in effect that campaign statements --- if not words themselves --- have no meaning, and therefore that the populace is expected to vote not on the basis of who has the policies they like, but who pressed their emotional buttons.

And that's descending into some kind of prehuman animal species. Which is of course what we've seen manifest lately. And it's also what happened to Germany in the 1930s. O'Really seems to think words with no meaning are somehow OK if the end result is "winning".

I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.

 

[flacaltenn]

Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??

​

CK gets what I mean.

Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!! I have no idea what the conceited con-man O'Reilly thinks. But it could be --- by accident --- that I agree with him. In fact --- I think the Trump minions are gonna HATE his "deals" and his "people" within MONTHS of seeing the government operated like a corporate sponsored reality show...

You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK...