Is ANY direction a good direction?

[Czernobog]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You, nor anybody else, knows the direction The orange clown will take us. His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****. He is an unknown, and yes, I will take that any day over that despicable creature destroying all those pant suits.

He's not an "unknown". he's irrational, emotional, raving, and dangerous. And, as to the "lying, cheating *****", Trump is the paragon of honesty?!?!? Trump University. "I don't need pollsters"...well...until he does. "I am running a self funded campaign"...well...until he isn't! Sorry, Slick, if lying and cheating is your criteria for disqualification, then you can't vote for Trump, either.

Then if that is YOUR criteria, then you can't vote for Clinton. And if it isn't YOUR criteria, you can't disqualify him for it.

I didn't say that it was my criteria. Bucktoothmoron was the one who said, "His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****," implying that her dishonesty is a problem. I don't even agree with the characterization, but, I already know from experience, trying to dissuade anyone of their opinions of Clinton - particulary when they refer to her as the "...Cackling, lying, cheating *****..." - is a waste of time. So, instead, I point out the lack of logical thinking to choose one liar over another perceived liar, as the only reason to vote for someone.

 

[Correll]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

 

[Czernobog]

Funny. I always thought the "good manager" was the one that didn't run a business into the ground so that it needed bankruptcy to save it from being lost. Silly me.

Well, apparently you are not familiar with the risks involved in running a business. Maybe you should look into it. Look how many businesses face hardships as the market changes.

Really? so, no one has ever run a business without having to file bankruptcy? Because Trump has done so not one, but four ******* times! You can gall that "good management" if you like. I call it running businesses into the ground.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You, nor anybody else, knows the direction The orange clown will take us. His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****. He is an unknown, and yes, I will take that any day over that despicable creature destroying all those pant suits.

He's not an "unknown". he's irrational, emotional, raving, and dangerous. And, as to the "lying, cheating *****", Trump is the paragon of honesty?!?!? Trump University. "I don't need pollsters"...well...until he does. "I am running a self funded campaign"...well...until he isn't! Sorry, Slick, if lying and cheating is your criteria for disqualification, then you can't vote for Trump, either.

Then if that is YOUR criteria, then you can't vote for Clinton. And if it isn't YOUR criteria, you can't disqualify him for it.

I didn't say that it was my criteria. Bucktoothmoron was the one who said, "His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****," implying that her dishonesty is a problem. I don't even agree with the characterization, but, I already know from experience, trying to dissuade anyone of their opinions of Clinton - particulary when they refer to her as the "...Cackling, lying, cheating *****..." - is a waste of time. So, instead, I point out the lack of logical thinking to choose one liar over another perceived liar, as the only reason to vote for someone.

You disagree with the characterization of her as a cackling, lying cheating *****. Which adjective do you think doesn't fit her?

 

[defcon4]

Funny. I always thought the "good manager" was the one that didn't run a business into the ground so that it needed bankruptcy to save it from being lost. Silly me.

Well, apparently you are not familiar with the risks involved in running a business. Maybe you should look into it. Look how many businesses face hardships as the market changes.

Really? so, no one has ever run a business without having to file bankruptcy? Because Trump has done so not one, but four ******* times! You can gall that "good management" if you like. I call it running businesses into the ground.

Absolutely….. and the final outcome is $ 10 billion net….I wish I had a business ran into the ground with that kind of wealth….

 

[Czernobog]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You, nor anybody else, knows the direction The orange clown will take us. His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****. He is an unknown, and yes, I will take that any day over that despicable creature destroying all those pant suits.

He's not an "unknown". he's irrational, emotional, raving, and dangerous. And, as to the "lying, cheating *****", Trump is the paragon of honesty?!?!? Trump University. "I don't need pollsters"...well...until he does. "I am running a self funded campaign"...well...until he isn't! Sorry, Slick, if lying and cheating is your criteria for disqualification, then you can't vote for Trump, either.

Well if we are going to start quoting Lies and reversals told by the orange clown and the pantsuit bull dyke then we will need a nearly endless thread. The biggest difference between the 2 is the orange clown has been a successful business man who has made real money, while the pant suit bull dyke has used her and slick willie's political influence to make millions. She has never created anything which hasn't been paid for by somebody else.

Which has what to so with being capable of running a bureaucracy, exactly?

People keep saying that like it actually means anything.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You seem to think that one of these canidates is fully qualified to be president. I don't believe either is qualified. Given that, I will take the orange clown who has not been bought by lobbyist for the past 20 years.

Sure. let's just cut out the middle-man. Instead of choosing the person who has been "bought out by lobbyists for the last 20 years", let's just go straight to putting the guy the lobbyists have worked for in the White House. Then we won't need lobbyists; the corporate heads will just run things out right, and we'll get on with the oligarchy. Your lack of logic is astounding.

 

[Czernobog]

You disagree with the characterization of her as a cackling, lying cheating *****. Which adjective do you think doesn't fit her?

None of them. However, I see no point in bothering to change your mind. Moving on...

 

[Czernobog]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

Uh huh... if you say so...

 

[dblack]

Nope

 

[Correll]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

Uh huh... if you say so...

Are you really projecting YOUR political analysises on a senior Republican and assuming he is motivated by the same assumptions that you are making?


Deporting illegals won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Bringing back manufacturing jobs won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

 

[Czernobog]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

Uh huh... if you say so...

Are you really projecting YOUR political analysises on a senior Republican and assuming he is motivated by the same assumptions that you are making?


Deporting illegals won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Bringing back manufacturing jobs won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Deporting 10 million Latinos isn't logistically possible, and anyone with half a brain knows that. This is why Republicans love to campaign on it during elections, but never seem to get around to doing anything about it after. Because it's always a great way to piss off the base, and get them out to vote, but realistically there's just no mechanism, or resources to round up 10 million people.

How? How, precisely, is he going to deport 10 million people? How, exactly, is he going to "bring" manufacturing jobs back? You seem to think that bringing the manufacturing industry back to the US will bring back the mass production jobs. The industry is coming back. They're just more streamlined, and need less people. Kinda like the mining jobs Trump promised. Guess what? The Coal Trolls have stopped making coal. The obstacle to coal miner's jobs isn't the government - it's the coal industry. They have simply moved on to new, different ways to get at what little coal is left, and those new ways need less people to make them operate. There are no coal jobs to bring back. There are no manufacturing jobs to bring back. You seem tho think that Trump is going to "bring back" an employment model that just doesn't exist anymore.

That's the problem with Trump. Even the things he says that he is sincere about, he simply cannot deliver. Meanwhile, he will make things worse here, at home, and globally.

 

[Correll]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

Uh huh... if you say so...

Are you really projecting YOUR political analysises on a senior Republican and assuming he is motivated by the same assumptions that you are making?


Deporting illegals won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Bringing back manufacturing jobs won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Deporting 10 million Latinos isn't logistically possible, and anyone with half a brain knows that. This is why Republicans love to campaign on it during elections, but never seem to get around to doing anything about it after. Because it's always a great way to piss off the base, and get them out to vote, but realistically there's just no mechanism, or resources to round up 10 million people.

How? How, precisely, is he going to deport 10 million people? How, exactly, is he going to "bring" manufacturing jobs back? You seem to think that bringing the manufacturing industry back to the US will bring back the mass production jobs. The industry is coming back. They're just more streamlined, and need less people. Kinda like the mining jobs Trump promised. Guess what? The Coal Trolls have stopped making coal. The obstacle to coal miner's jobs isn't the government - it's the coal industry. They have simply moved on to new, different ways to get at what little coal is left, and those new ways need less people to make them operate. There are no coal jobs to bring back. There are no manufacturing jobs to bring back. You seem tho think that Trump is going to "bring back" an employment model that just doesn't exist anymore.

That's the problem with Trump. Even the things he says that he is sincere about, he simply cannot deliver. Meanwhile, he will make things worse here, at home, and globally.

Everything you say is based on ONE false premise.


That there is no legitimate way to disagree with you, and thus all reasonable and intelligent people must agree with your assessments of the issues.

This says nothing about moderate or Establishment Republicans.

All this indicates is that you are extremely narrowminded.

 

[Czernobog]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

Uh huh... if you say so...

Are you really projecting YOUR political analysises on a senior Republican and assuming he is motivated by the same assumptions that you are making?


Deporting illegals won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Bringing back manufacturing jobs won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Deporting 10 million Latinos isn't logistically possible, and anyone with half a brain knows that. This is why Republicans love to campaign on it during elections, but never seem to get around to doing anything about it after. Because it's always a great way to piss off the base, and get them out to vote, but realistically there's just no mechanism, or resources to round up 10 million people.

How? How, precisely, is he going to deport 10 million people? How, exactly, is he going to "bring" manufacturing jobs back? You seem to think that bringing the manufacturing industry back to the US will bring back the mass production jobs. The industry is coming back. They're just more streamlined, and need less people. Kinda like the mining jobs Trump promised. Guess what? The Coal Trolls have stopped making coal. The obstacle to coal miner's jobs isn't the government - it's the coal industry. They have simply moved on to new, different ways to get at what little coal is left, and those new ways need less people to make them operate. There are no coal jobs to bring back. There are no manufacturing jobs to bring back. You seem tho think that Trump is going to "bring back" an employment model that just doesn't exist anymore.

That's the problem with Trump. Even the things he says that he is sincere about, he simply cannot deliver. Meanwhile, he will make things worse here, at home, and globally.

Everything you say is based on ONE false premise.


That there is no legitimate way to disagree with you, and thus all reasonable and intelligent people must agree with your assessments of the issues.

This says nothing about moderate or Establishment Republicans.

All this indicates is that you are extremely narrowminded.

Well, that makes it easy for you, doesn't it? Instead of having to answer the questions, and actually apply some critical thinking, all you have to do is convince yourself, "Well, he just doesn't like Donald, so it doesn't matter..."

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out...

 

[Correll]

You are assuming that McConnell was resisting Trump because he thought his policies would lead to disaster.


From what I've seen I think the GOP leadership was resisting because they love their cushy jobs and power, and don't want to rock the boat.

Uh huh... if you say so...

Are you really projecting YOUR political analysises on a senior Republican and assuming he is motivated by the same assumptions that you are making?


Deporting illegals won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Bringing back manufacturing jobs won't cause a catastrophe. McConnell knows that. It might upset certain big money donors.

Deporting 10 million Latinos isn't logistically possible, and anyone with half a brain knows that. This is why Republicans love to campaign on it during elections, but never seem to get around to doing anything about it after. Because it's always a great way to piss off the base, and get them out to vote, but realistically there's just no mechanism, or resources to round up 10 million people.

How? How, precisely, is he going to deport 10 million people? How, exactly, is he going to "bring" manufacturing jobs back? You seem to think that bringing the manufacturing industry back to the US will bring back the mass production jobs. The industry is coming back. They're just more streamlined, and need less people. Kinda like the mining jobs Trump promised. Guess what? The Coal Trolls have stopped making coal. The obstacle to coal miner's jobs isn't the government - it's the coal industry. They have simply moved on to new, different ways to get at what little coal is left, and those new ways need less people to make them operate. There are no coal jobs to bring back. There are no manufacturing jobs to bring back. You seem tho think that Trump is going to "bring back" an employment model that just doesn't exist anymore.

That's the problem with Trump. Even the things he says that he is sincere about, he simply cannot deliver. Meanwhile, he will make things worse here, at home, and globally.

Everything you say is based on ONE false premise.


That there is no legitimate way to disagree with you, and thus all reasonable and intelligent people must agree with your assessments of the issues.

This says nothing about moderate or Establishment Republicans.

All this indicates is that you are extremely narrowminded.

Well, that makes it easy for you, doesn't it? Instead of having to answer the questions, and actually apply some critical thinking, all you have to do is convince yourself, "Well, he just doesn't like Donald, so it doesn't matter..."

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out...

The bar you have set in the OP, by assuming that McConnell and his peeps, are in lock step with you in their assessment of Trump and Trump's polices is that I just have to point out that is nonsense.

Which it is.

IF McConnell and other republicans who are falling in line, don't agree with you on the issues, than your entire premise for this thread is rendered null and void.

Do you agree that someone could disagree BOTH with you AND donald Trump on the issues?

Or are all issues in your mind, binary problems with only TWO possible answers?

For instance someone might believe that the illegals COULD be deported, but still be against it because they think it would cost too much on NOT lead to improvements in the job markets and salaries.

Thus, they might be against it, but without thinking that it would be an utter disaster if attempted.

 

[Papageorgio]

So, Mitch McConnell was on MtP this morning, and the general message he had , in reference to kinda, sorta, more or less supporting Donald Trump was, "Clinton will just continue the policies of the Obama administration, and we need to go in a new direction, and Trump is definitely a new direction."

Every time he said that, the same question kept going through my head: Even if that new direction is catastrophic?


I mean, look, his comment presumes a couple of things - that the direction we're heading in with Obama is not great, and that Clinton will follow the same direction. I think either of those statements are arguable, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow for the accuracy of both.

Billy is driving the car, and heading us straight into a heavy traffic jam. Bob insists on taking over driving, and finds a route that avoids the traffic jam. Unfortunately that route took the car right off a 100 ft cliff. Under the circumstances, wouldn't the traffic jam have been preferable?

Okay. so, you don't like the direction that the Democrats are taking us. Is "going in a new direction" really worth it, if that direction is the clusterfuck that Trump would lead us to?

Now, allow me to be clear. I understand that there are some conservatives - and I use that term loosely - who wholeheartedly voted for Trump, love Trump, think Trump in the bees knees, and that Trump is going to be the salvation of the nation. This question is not directed to them. They are not voting for Trump because, "Wellll...at least it's a new direction..." They're supporting him because they think he's brilliant, and will be phenomenal as President.

This question is for the rest of the conservatives/Republicans who are swallowing their disgust, and "falling in line".

You, nor anybody else, knows the direction The orange clown will take us. His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****. He is an unknown, and yes, I will take that any day over that despicable creature destroying all those pant suits.

He's not an "unknown". he's irrational, emotional, raving, and dangerous. And, as to the "lying, cheating *****", Trump is the paragon of honesty?!?!? Trump University. "I don't need pollsters"...well...until he does. "I am running a self funded campaign"...well...until he isn't! Sorry, Slick, if lying and cheating is your criteria for disqualification, then you can't vote for Trump, either.

Then if that is YOUR criteria, then you can't vote for Clinton. And if it isn't YOUR criteria, you can't disqualify him for it.

I didn't say that it was my criteria. Bucktoothmoron was the one who said, "His greatest qualification is he is not that Cackling, lying, cheating *****," implying that her dishonesty is a problem. I don't even agree with the characterization, but, I already know from experience, trying to dissuade anyone of their opinions of Clinton - particulary when they refer to her as the "...Cackling, lying, cheating *****..." - is a waste of time. So, instead, I point out the lack of logical thinking to choose one liar over another perceived liar, as the only reason to vote for someone.

Perceived liar? Both are liars, there is absolutely no dispute of that, to claim otherwise is deception. We have knowledge of both lying to gain the advantage. As far as direction? If we want more Wall St. favors, more government dishonesty that we endured under Obama, we need to elect Clinton. If you want a wheeler dealer with no subject off the table, you go Trump.

Both are very poor choices but this is what partisan nut jobs want.

 

[Czernobog]

Do you agree that someone could disagree BOTH with you AND donald Trump on the issues?

Not only do I agree, I presume that is the case. It's rather my point.

For instance someone might believe that the illegals COULD be deported, but still be against it because they think it would cost too much on NOT lead to improvements in the job markets and salaries.

Thus, they might be against it, but without thinking that it would be an utter disaster if attempted.

Okay. How? How do you propose rounding up, and deporting 10 million people? I have yet to have anyone who claims that "deporting all of the illegals" is a perfectly reasonable expectation to explain to me how they think that works, in the real world. So?

How? How do you propose it is done?

 

[Czernobog]

Perceived liar? Both are liars, there is absolutely no dispute of that, to claim otherwise is deception. We have knowledge of both lying to gain the advantage. As far as direction? If we want more Wall St. favors, more government dishonesty that we endured under Obama, we need to elect Clinton. If you want a wheeler dealer with no subject off the table, you go Trump.

Both are very poor choices but this is what partisan nut jobs want.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but, some examples of the Hillary Clinton lies? For the record, I rather expect the e-mails to be where you go next...

See, to be clear, I understand strong ideological opposition to Clinton. I'm just tired of the character attacks.

 

[Correll]

Do you agree that someone could disagree BOTH with you AND donald Trump on the issues?

Not only do I agree, I presume that is the case. It's rather my point.

For instance someone might believe that the illegals COULD be deported, but still be against it because they think it would cost too much on NOT lead to improvements in the job markets and salaries.

Thus, they might be against it, but without thinking that it would be an utter disaster if attempted.

Okay. How? How do you propose rounding up, and deporting 10 million people? I have yet to have anyone who claims that "deporting all of the illegals" is a perfectly reasonable expectation to explain to me how they think that works, in the real world. So?

How? How do you propose it is done?

That's really derailing your own thread.

I would be happy to answer, when I return later tonight or tomorrow, but it will have nothing to do with your OP.

I was trying to NOT do that, assuming that you cared about the op enough to start a thread.

Do you want me to answer?

 

[Czernobog]

Do you agree that someone could disagree BOTH with you AND donald Trump on the issues?

Not only do I agree, I presume that is the case. It's rather my point.

For instance someone might believe that the illegals COULD be deported, but still be against it because they think it would cost too much on NOT lead to improvements in the job markets and salaries.

Thus, they might be against it, but without thinking that it would be an utter disaster if attempted.

Okay. How? How do you propose rounding up, and deporting 10 million people? I have yet to have anyone who claims that "deporting all of the illegals" is a perfectly reasonable expectation to explain to me how they think that works, in the real world. So?

How? How do you propose it is done?

That's really derailing your own thread.

I would be happy to answer, when I return later tonight or tomorrow, but it will have nothing to do with your OP.

I was trying to NOT do that, assuming that you cared about the op enough to start a thread.

Do you want me to answer?

You actually have me curious. After all, your contention is that the outrageous things Trump claim he will do, he can,. So. I'm curious how we go about deporting 10 million people without turning the INS into a veritable army.

 

[Papageorgio]

Perceived liar? Both are liars, there is absolutely no dispute of that, to claim otherwise is deception. We have knowledge of both lying to gain the advantage. As far as direction? If we want more Wall St. favors, more government dishonesty that we endured under Obama, we need to elect Clinton. If you want a wheeler dealer with no subject off the table, you go Trump.

Both are very poor choices but this is what partisan nut jobs want.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but, some examples of the Hillary Clinton lies? For the record, I rather expect the e-mails to be where you go next...

See, to be clear, I understand strong ideological opposition to Clinton. I'm just tired of the character attacks.

So when you mention character attacks, I see both sides doing the same. They can't upbuild their candidate, they only tear down the other.
As far as lies, sniper fire, named after Sir Hillary, the lies her State Department issued in regards to Libya that resulted in civilian deaths, her not having two phones. Those are just off the top of my head. The email stuff, the Benghazi stuff, I don't mention. Partisan hacks defend their own, I see it with Trump and I see it with Clinton.

The election is the voting of the lesser of two evils, no difference.