Yes, definitely sarcasm, bro.
If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??Obviously you've never read my postings. Have we already forgotten the high school student flipped like a tiddlywink? That was you slobbering the Authority knob and me ridiculing your doing that.
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
If you refuse to vote for Trump, Hillary will have an easier time of getting elected because it's going to be Trump vs Hillary. So unless you want Hillary to win it is time to stop bad mouthing Trump.
If you refuse to vote for Trump, Hillary will have an easier time of getting elected because it's going to be Trump vs Hillary. So unless you want Hillary to win it is time to stop bad mouthing Trump.
BTW: REUTERS 5-DAY ROLLING POLL: TRUMP 35.8%, CARSON 14.6%, RUBIO 11.5%, CRUZ 7.8%... MORE
Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.
If you refuse to vote for Trump, Hillary will have an easier time of getting elected because it's going to be Trump vs Hillary. So unless you want Hillary to win it is time to stop bad mouthing Trump.
BTW: REUTERS 5-DAY ROLLING POLL: TRUMP 35.8%, CARSON 14.6%, RUBIO 11.5%, CRUZ 7.8%... MORE
Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.
If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
1. "Harsh language" is irrelevant. One screens that out. What's relevant is, in the case of "rapists", the fatally fallacious logic, in this case blanket generalization, which tells me he's an unabashed panderer. Panderers insult my intelligence, and they should be insulting yours too. And in the case of "closing mosques" a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which is literally the first thing a POTUS has to swear to preserve, protect and defend at literally the moment he or she takes office. That Rump expresses this degree of contempt for the framework this country is built on is enough, all by itself, to disqualify him from consideration. That simple enough?
None of that involves "dislike"; that element comes in with the attention-whoring and irrepressible self-inflation. I have zero respect for that. Actually less than zero. Far into negative numbers. Insofar as it's relevant to a candidate it reveals a man with as he would say "lots of problems", not the least of which is a hopeless insecurity and self-centredness that does not bode well for any leader of anything.
2. Pointless. Rump can do something new and start articulating some policies, rather than shovel after shovel of pandering bullshit, but it's too late for that because see number 1.
3. As noted -- doublethink lives. Cops are supposed to be The Law, and obviously I question how they administer it a lot. The MSM is not an "authority figure" by any definition at all. And I question that too -- it makes up most of what I do here whenever somebody posts an absurd link expecting readers to be as gullible as the OP was. My record on that is also a mile long.
If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
1. "Harsh language" is irrelevant. One screens that out. What's relevant is, in the case of "rapists", the fatally fallacious logic, in this case blanket generalization, which tells me he's an unabashed panderer. Panderers insult my intelligence, and they should be insulting yours too. And in the case of "closing mosques" a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which is literally the first thing a POTUS has to swear to preserve, protect and defend at literally the moment he or she takes office. That Rump expresses this degree of contempt for the framework this country is built on is enough, all by itself, to disqualify him from consideration. That simple enough?
None of that involves "dislike"; that element comes in with the attention-whoring and irrepressible self-inflation. I have zero respect for that. Actually less than zero. Far into negative numbers. Insofar as it's relevant to a candidate it reveals a man with as he would say "lots of problems", not the least of which is a hopeless insecurity and self-centredness that does not bode well for any leader of anything.
2. Pointless. Rump can do something new and start articulating some policies, rather than shovel after shovel of pandering bullshit, but it's too late for that because see number 1.
3. As noted -- doublethink lives. Cops are supposed to be The Law, and obviously I question how they administer it a lot. The MSM is not an "authority figure" by any definition at all. And I question that too -- it makes up most of what I do here whenever somebody posts an absurd link expecting readers to be as gullible as the OP was. My record on that is also a mile long.
1. It's simple. It's just not convincing considering the blanket generalizations and complete disrespect for the Constitution from the Left with nary a whimper from ANY lefties, from slaming Christians, Working Class White, SOutherns, ect, OR Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Eminent Domain, Restrictions on Speech, Mandatory Voluntarism, ect.
2. Trumps policies are new and fresh. Shockingly so. He is challenging long standing Consensus on serious issues and making no bones about it. Why are you afraid to admit that?
3. Not for liberals they aren't. A liberal questioning a cop is about as much of questioning Authority as a conservative questioning what a well known pot head has to say about legalizing marijuana. Your Authority figures are different than mine.
And you managed to question them when they told you something that you didn't want to believe it true?
When you really need to question them is when they tell you what you want to hear. Like the idea that Trump has no policies.
Trumps ability to think fresh, outside the box of the Professional Political Class that is his biggest advantage, aside from also being financially independent of them too..
If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
1. "Harsh language" is irrelevant. One screens that out. What's relevant is, in the case of "rapists", the fatally fallacious logic, in this case blanket generalization, which tells me he's an unabashed panderer. Panderers insult my intelligence, and they should be insulting yours too. And in the case of "closing mosques" a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which is literally the first thing a POTUS has to swear to preserve, protect and defend at literally the moment he or she takes office. That Rump expresses this degree of contempt for the framework this country is built on is enough, all by itself, to disqualify him from consideration. That simple enough?
None of that involves "dislike"; that element comes in with the attention-whoring and irrepressible self-inflation. I have zero respect for that. Actually less than zero. Far into negative numbers. Insofar as it's relevant to a candidate it reveals a man with as he would say "lots of problems", not the least of which is a hopeless insecurity and self-centredness that does not bode well for any leader of anything.
2. Pointless. Rump can do something new and start articulating some policies, rather than shovel after shovel of pandering bullshit, but it's too late for that because see number 1.
3. As noted -- doublethink lives. Cops are supposed to be The Law, and obviously I question how they administer it a lot. The MSM is not an "authority figure" by any definition at all. And I question that too -- it makes up most of what I do here whenever somebody posts an absurd link expecting readers to be as gullible as the OP was. My record on that is also a mile long.
1. It's simple. It's just not convincing considering the blanket generalizations and complete disrespect for the Constitution from the Left with nary a whimper from ANY lefties, from slaming Christians, Working Class White, SOutherns, ect, OR Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Eminent Domain, Restrictions on Speech, Mandatory Voluntarism, ect.
2. Trumps policies are new and fresh. Shockingly so. He is challenging long standing Consensus on serious issues and making no bones about it. Why are you afraid to admit that?
3. Not for liberals they aren't. A liberal questioning a cop is about as much of questioning Authority as a conservative questioning what a well known pot head has to say about legalizing marijuana. Your Authority figures are different than mine.
And you managed to question them when they told you something that you didn't want to believe it true?
When you really need to question them is when they tell you what you want to hear. Like the idea that Trump has no policies.
1. "the Left"? You actually want to accuse a series of blanket generalizations --- by using a blanket generalization? Are you insane?
Plus, you've listed a litany of various and vague issues on which you have no clue what my various positions are. I'm not "the Left". I'm an individual. That concept seems to be over your head.
2. For the 87th time, I have yet to hear him articulate any. All I hear is empty emotive pandering. And I've said this literally EVERY TIME you've brought it up, yet here you are continuing to ignore that.
3. You're actually trying so hard to spin that you're ready to deny that police --- who are charged with enforcing civil law --- are not Authority figures.
That about says it all. Dishonest hack.
I guess it's hard for some people to tell the difference between elucidating policy and vague postering.
If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
1. "Harsh language" is irrelevant. One screens that out. What's relevant is, in the case of "rapists", the fatally fallacious logic, in this case blanket generalization, which tells me he's an unabashed panderer. Panderers insult my intelligence, and they should be insulting yours too. And in the case of "closing mosques" a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which is literally the first thing a POTUS has to swear to preserve, protect and defend at literally the moment he or she takes office. That Rump expresses this degree of contempt for the framework this country is built on is enough, all by itself, to disqualify him from consideration. That simple enough?
None of that involves "dislike"; that element comes in with the attention-whoring and irrepressible self-inflation. I have zero respect for that. Actually less than zero. Far into negative numbers. Insofar as it's relevant to a candidate it reveals a man with as he would say "lots of problems", not the least of which is a hopeless insecurity and self-centredness that does not bode well for any leader of anything.
2. Pointless. Rump can do something new and start articulating some policies, rather than shovel after shovel of pandering bullshit, but it's too late for that because see number 1.
3. As noted -- doublethink lives. Cops are supposed to be The Law, and obviously I question how they administer it a lot. The MSM is not an "authority figure" by any definition at all. And I question that too -- it makes up most of what I do here whenever somebody posts an absurd link expecting readers to be as gullible as the OP was. My record on that is also a mile long.
1. It's simple. It's just not convincing considering the blanket generalizations and complete disrespect for the Constitution from the Left with nary a whimper from ANY lefties, from slaming Christians, Working Class White, SOutherns, ect, OR Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Eminent Domain, Restrictions on Speech, Mandatory Voluntarism, ect.
2. Trumps policies are new and fresh. Shockingly so. He is challenging long standing Consensus on serious issues and making no bones about it. Why are you afraid to admit that?
3. Not for liberals they aren't. A liberal questioning a cop is about as much of questioning Authority as a conservative questioning what a well known pot head has to say about legalizing marijuana. Your Authority figures are different than mine.
And you managed to question them when they told you something that you didn't want to believe it true?
When you really need to question them is when they tell you what you want to hear. Like the idea that Trump has no policies.
That must be why he invites Hilary to his private social gatherings.
I guess it's hard for some people to tell the difference between elucidating policy and vague postering.
If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
1. "Harsh language" is irrelevant. One screens that out. What's relevant is, in the case of "rapists", the fatally fallacious logic, in this case blanket generalization, which tells me he's an unabashed panderer. Panderers insult my intelligence, and they should be insulting yours too. And in the case of "closing mosques" a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which is literally the first thing a POTUS has to swear to preserve, protect and defend at literally the moment he or she takes office. That Rump expresses this degree of contempt for the framework this country is built on is enough, all by itself, to disqualify him from consideration. That simple enough?
None of that involves "dislike"; that element comes in with the attention-whoring and irrepressible self-inflation. I have zero respect for that. Actually less than zero. Far into negative numbers. Insofar as it's relevant to a candidate it reveals a man with as he would say "lots of problems", not the least of which is a hopeless insecurity and self-centredness that does not bode well for any leader of anything.
2. Pointless. Rump can do something new and start articulating some policies, rather than shovel after shovel of pandering bullshit, but it's too late for that because see number 1.
3. As noted -- doublethink lives. Cops are supposed to be The Law, and obviously I question how they administer it a lot. The MSM is not an "authority figure" by any definition at all. And I question that too -- it makes up most of what I do here whenever somebody posts an absurd link expecting readers to be as gullible as the OP was. My record on that is also a mile long.
1. It's simple. It's just not convincing considering the blanket generalizations and complete disrespect for the Constitution from the Left with nary a whimper from ANY lefties, from slaming Christians, Working Class White, SOutherns, ect, OR Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Eminent Domain, Restrictions on Speech, Mandatory Voluntarism, ect.
2. Trumps policies are new and fresh. Shockingly so. He is challenging long standing Consensus on serious issues and making no bones about it. Why are you afraid to admit that?
3. Not for liberals they aren't. A liberal questioning a cop is about as much of questioning Authority as a conservative questioning what a well known pot head has to say about legalizing marijuana. Your Authority figures are different than mine.
And you managed to question them when they told you something that you didn't want to believe it true?
When you really need to question them is when they tell you what you want to hear. Like the idea that Trump has no policies.
I'm pretty sure you're not playing, since you can't name even one single so called policy that Trump has publicly detailed during his faux campaign.I guess it's hard for some people to tell the difference between elucidating policy and vague postering.If you mean characterizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "considering shutting down mosques", that's all the communication I need to hear. See, the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution, and he's already disqualified himself. Why do I need to hear him dig hisself even deeper?
Hell, he doesn't even seem to understand the distinction between the Second Amendment and French law. Why would I want a captain at the helm who has no idea where he's going?
Or more likely --- it reveals that there aren't any. Defying the Constitution and spouting a lot of empty emotive fluff does not constitute "policies". Unless you count the mining of the unwashed not-listening as a "policy".
Exactly. Because, again, new Studebakers do not exist.
That wouldn't be fair. We'd be back to the Studebakers.
Moi??
Doublethink lives.
1. Harsh language directed at people violating our laws and our sovereignty is imo, not a reason to dislike someone. That you do, is an actual reason, such as it is, finally, but you still haven't been able to articulate any of his policies that you don't like.
2. The policies are there. THey have been spoon fed to you . That you still play dumb is just proof of what a dishonest ass you are.
3. Cops aren't your Authority Figure moron. They are your enemy. It is not impressive that you "question" them. You moron. You ever question the pap the MSM feeds you?
1. "Harsh language" is irrelevant. One screens that out. What's relevant is, in the case of "rapists", the fatally fallacious logic, in this case blanket generalization, which tells me he's an unabashed panderer. Panderers insult my intelligence, and they should be insulting yours too. And in the case of "closing mosques" a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which is literally the first thing a POTUS has to swear to preserve, protect and defend at literally the moment he or she takes office. That Rump expresses this degree of contempt for the framework this country is built on is enough, all by itself, to disqualify him from consideration. That simple enough?
None of that involves "dislike"; that element comes in with the attention-whoring and irrepressible self-inflation. I have zero respect for that. Actually less than zero. Far into negative numbers. Insofar as it's relevant to a candidate it reveals a man with as he would say "lots of problems", not the least of which is a hopeless insecurity and self-centredness that does not bode well for any leader of anything.
2. Pointless. Rump can do something new and start articulating some policies, rather than shovel after shovel of pandering bullshit, but it's too late for that because see number 1.
3. As noted -- doublethink lives. Cops are supposed to be The Law, and obviously I question how they administer it a lot. The MSM is not an "authority figure" by any definition at all. And I question that too -- it makes up most of what I do here whenever somebody posts an absurd link expecting readers to be as gullible as the OP was. My record on that is also a mile long.
1. It's simple. It's just not convincing considering the blanket generalizations and complete disrespect for the Constitution from the Left with nary a whimper from ANY lefties, from slaming Christians, Working Class White, SOutherns, ect, OR Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Eminent Domain, Restrictions on Speech, Mandatory Voluntarism, ect.
2. Trumps policies are new and fresh. Shockingly so. He is challenging long standing Consensus on serious issues and making no bones about it. Why are you afraid to admit that?
3. Not for liberals they aren't. A liberal questioning a cop is about as much of questioning Authority as a conservative questioning what a well known pot head has to say about legalizing marijuana. Your Authority figures are different than mine.
And you managed to question them when they told you something that you didn't want to believe it true?
When you really need to question them is when they tell you what you want to hear. Like the idea that Trump has no policies.
Wow. Still playing stupid.
INcredible.
