Protesting for what?

[Yamato]

7 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

 

Yes my word was "Treason".

I said...

- "As far as my opinion on the Bush-Saudi relationship... Watching the romance between Dubya and the Saudis was sickening to say the least. But Gay romance aside, my opinion on their relationship can be summed up in one word... Treason"

Based on not just Dubya's completely ignoring of the Saudi's involvement in 9,11, but aiding and assisting them with escaping, and the entire cover-up of their involvement in 9/11. Not to mention the relationship with the Bush family and both, the House Of Saud and the Bin Laden family. I don't think Trump is quite on the same playing field in this regard in reference to my meaning.

I've repeatedly stated, quite clearly, my opinions on the Saudi-U.S. relationship, and how I think it should currently be approached(short of a war). You disagree and want to argue in immediate absolutes, in which I disagree. Period.

If things with ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc...foreign policy... continues going down the same path over the next couple of years, as it has over the last few decades, THEN I will be the first in line to call Trump out as a Traitor.

Not sure how many different ways do you need to be told that I am willing to wait and see what happens, BEFORE casting judgment? Your attempts to change and sway my opinion won't work.

2 weeks in and your calling Trump out for Treason based on twisting why I used the word Treason to begin with.

Just looking to argue for the sake of arguing.

Well first, Trump's not my "boy" in the White House, so that's wrong... and "drop the ball on Saudi Arabia"??? Yea, I'm going to suddenly do an about face and give them a pass or something

No, I apparently have something of a life to lead and do not have the time to respond in every thread here at UM.

What is it about Iran now that you would like to argue about?

You wrote in that thread...

- "Did you watch the OP video Lemieux?   I noticed you didn't participate in the other thread either.   Anything to discuss about Iran?"

I didn't realize I was required to post in every thread.

Actually, I have posted quite a bit about Iran here at UM, and I guess you weren't paying attention again. You asked me to show you where I've posted about Saudi Arabia, which I did... so what now... now I have to run around doing research for you too about Iran to give you something to argue about?

The reason I posted what I did in that thread because as I said, Claire had already started that exact topic previously, and the Mods obviously missed it.

Claire and I don't exactly see eye to eye on all things, but I don't think her posting should be buried, ignored and forgotten about, so in the interests of fairness I alerted the Mods about the double-topic. I didn't realize that obligated me to post my opinions on the subject matter of the topic.

You don't like Trump... I get that... I like Trump better than Clinton, or Bush or Obama.

I'm willing to give Trump some time before I decide just exactly what he is.

I did the same with Obama too... I didn't know much about him in 07/08, and even though I didn't like who he picked, and/or kept on, in assembling his first Administration, I still waited a few years to see exactly what he would become... Which unfortunately turned out to be an extension of the same Clinton/Bush group that ruins Middle Eastern countries and skyrockets the National Debt, etc etc.

I didn't support Obama at all, but nor did I instantly attack him... I DID afford him the time to see if he would be any good or not... Eventually proven NOT, and his true colors came out in the end.

People can keep jumping up and down all they like, but I will still wait and see how things unfold first instead of running around in a frenzied panic, smashing windows, setting fires, assaulting people and so on.

I'll eventually address your Iran question when I get the time considering I now know how important that is to you for some reason... I have no doubts there will be at least something you will want to argue about which should make you happy and keep you busy

"Protesting for what?" can use some follow through.  I read the OP again and moving beyond the rant and into the solution stage, what would you like to be done?   You've got over a million protesters on Jan. 21, do you really think you're speaking for all of them and what they're protesting about with what you included in your OP?  

When Trump visits Saudi Arabia, please explain how that's not going to be "treason".  Is there some reason to think Trump won't commit this "treason"?   

What would you like to be done?   I'd like to discuss the same thing on the Iran thread.   If you post about Saudi Arabia and Iran a lot already you shouldn't need me to make you, but sorry, I am going to ask.

I see George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the rear view mirror.   I see Trump through the windshield, let's go that way now.   Since your OP rant about Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump forgot to include Saudi Arabia on the immigration ban.    To answer your OP's question, there's something to protest about.  If your rants about Saudi Arabia are for real, that won't be difficult.

Eventually (hopefully) we'll get to the point where we can move past Hillary Clinton and onto who's running things, now would be a good time.   But if you really want to wait a few years to reach conclusions about Donald Trump, I'm sure over the years there'll still be plenty of other material about someone else to keep dredging up instead.   How much longer you can act like there's nothing to protest though...that time is now up.

[Baz Dane]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 3:06 PM, Startraveler said:

The protests are not because "Trump is SOOOO evil."

People are protesting because many folks in this country don't support unshackling Wall Street. They don't support opening up our waterways to pollution. They're don't support Trump's mini-Muslim ban, nor do they want to see 20 million people stripped of their insurance coverage. They don't want to see Trump fulfill his campaign promise to build a SCOTUS that reverses Roe v. Wade.

They are dissatisfied with the direction he's taking this country and they have a right to assemble and voice their concerns.

Hardly evidence IMO... Just a bunch of MSM led twisting of things to lead you to THINK what things he might do.

BUT... I grant that people have a right to "protest" the things you mention, so I will not argue that you are wrong in saying that.

I should have actually used the word "Rioting" in the OP, because I really have no problems with an actual peaceful protest. Even if I do not agree with the topic But it's the other BS that infuriates me. The multiple assaults on innocent people, the rioting, destroying property, setting things on fire including cars, cheering on the carnage as it's happening, plus also things like the MSM's slanted take on things(including the spreading of fake news, such as the Iraqi guy's mother dying at the airport for one example), the Hollywood stars' meltdown such as Rosie O'Donnell ridiculous call for Martial Law  

 

But I do have to say... "unshackling Wall Street"? ... So NOW it's time to riot?(I know you're not saying it's ok to "riot" so don't worry, I'm not trying to argue and put words in your mouth in that regard..."protest" you DO agree with, and I agree they have that right as well to be honest ) ... But how many decades has the "Wall Street" problem been Trump's fault? Why have there not been protests with such violent, vitriolic actions in the past when $Trillion$ were being "stolen"? That's one thing I have to ask(not you, just in general). I would say it's because the MSM didn't lead the public perception that way... until now, IMO.

Trump's executive order is for a review of things for now...

- "February 3, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Treasury to report, within 120 days, on whether governmental rules and policies promote or inhibit the order’s Core Principles for Financial Regulation."

Ultimately... "Conclusions"... According to Brookings...

- "In short, the Trump Administration is very likely to reduce regulatory burdens on the financial sector WITHOUT repealing Dodd-Frank. Although senior Trump officials have also said they would like to establish a “modern” version of Glass-Steagall and finally resolve the status of mortgage giant Fannie Mae, Congress will probably not be able to reach a broad enough consensus to enact legislation on these difficult issues."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/02/06/what-will-happen-to-dodd-frank-under-trumps-executive-order/

I highly doubt it's going to be all this nefarious stuff being thrown around by the MSM about it... Like the 25-page CIA Report(that nobody signed), or the 35-page Russian Intel Report(that nobody signed)... A bunch of BS.

Here's what he said about Frank-Dodd back in May...

- "Dodd-Frank has made it impossible for bankers to function," the presumptive Republican nominee said. "It makes it very hard for bankers to loan money for people to create jobs, for people with businesses to create jobs. And that has to stop."

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/trump-dodd-frank-wall-street/

It's mostly about reducing the far too many regulations and the excess waste of money which ultimately stagnates a portion of the economy. He is correct on those points. Things need to be looked at and fixed. But the MSM, instead of focusing on the actual issues of it, just promote the "he doing it for his friends" notion, because he stated that many of his friends with smaller businesses can not get loans under the current model... Which should be no surprise that a Billionaire has plenty of friends who own businesses for starters. And if a disproportionate amount of them can not get loans because of bureaucratic red tape, then the same is likely true throughout the nation.

Similar to the Stream Protection Rule, which the MSM is basically only going about allowing mining companies to dump coal into rivers... as if that's the reason they're looking it.

From Rand Paul...

- "While the list of overbearing regulations hurting our coal miners is certainly lengthy, the so-called Stream Protection Rule tops the list when it comes to the damage it could do. And don’t let the cleverly crafted name fool you; this rule is actually aimed at wiping out the entire coal industry."

http://middlesborodailynews.com/opinion/columns/15896/misnamed-stream-protection-rule-must-be-overturned

But all you will hear from the MSM is they're trying to allow dumping into rivers.

"mini-muslim ban" - That's just wrong... it is NOT a "muslim" ban... "20 million people stripped of their insurance coverage" - more MSM fed crap... "Roe v. Wade" - It's not going to change despite Trump's views or efforts, so my advice to you is don't get all bent out of shape over that one.

 

I agree, people do have the right to assemble and even voice their concerns(aka PROTEST). But that's NOT what I'm seeing happening time and time again.

Instead a rather large chunk of "protesters" are using their "right to protest" to constantly just outright attack people and cause mayhem and carnage... most of them are masked of course, like the cowards they are... Some even attacking women and children.

Like I say, in hindsight, I should have titled the thread "Rioting" instead of "Protesting", because that is what really gets me the most... I have no problems with legal protesting, but DAMN! All the attacks and assaults, and destruction of property, fires and so on, combined with some of the stupidest rhetoric from some of the pampered MSM stars that only encourages more insanity.

One problem I really have is the track record over the last almost 40 years of the "cabal" of Reagan(Bush), Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama(Clinton) ... and how many people have been killed, globally and domestic, from their near identical "policy" actions... plus the current state of not only the "War On Terror", but also the "War On Drugs" under their direction(control?)... plus the U.S. National Debt going from about $1 Trillion in 1980 to the almost $20 Trillion dollars it's nearly at now(it took the U.S. 200 years! for the Debt to reach the $1 Trillion mark by 1980, and then that amount doubled in only 8 years!, signaling the beginning of the spending/stealing? spree to where it's at now $20T) ... also the ever-shrinking Middle Class into poverty... the list of their track record goes on and on.

It just blows me away that for the first time in decades, someone is elected that MAY, possibly go a different route, and this is the reaction??? People would rather continue on this downward spiral of death and destruction that we have witnessed for the 40 years? Because that is EXACTLY what would have happened if Clinton had of won.

 

But... because Clinton didn't win we get this...

On Inauguration Day...

 

 

 

Even months before the election the "tolerant" Left were acting like Nazis...

 

This video shows multiple different incidents of "protesters" actions'... including two little girls, aged 8yrs and 11yrs old, who were pepper sprayed.

 

Another guy beaten unconscious...

 

Protesters blocking an ambulance with a patient...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/anti-trump-protesters-block-ambulance/

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/anti-trump-protesters-delay-ambulance-while-blocking-connecticut-highway/2312149

 

Here's a 12 year old kid who was beaten up for wearing a Trump hat, and then HE was suspended from school(the others faced discipline of some sorts)...

http://www.kmov.com/story/34424524/middle-school-student-attacked-on-bus-for-wearing-make-america-great-again-hat

I have to wonder what the parents of the kids who were shouting "You wanna build a ******g wall!" are like, and where their kids get such a heavy political attitude at such a young age... Fighting over lunch money, or a football, ok I understand... But because the kid has a Make America Great Again hat on??? I have a hard time believing that 11 and 12 year old kids are so concerned about politics on their own like that. Do they sit around reading the Political and Financial sections of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal??? Or rather, are they mimicking what they see the adults around them doing?

 

Protesting is one thing, but this is out of hand.

Shouting "peaceful protest" as they attack people and property?!?! How messed up is that.

Not all are doing that of course, and it's a minority of them rioting/attacking/destroying, but it's certainly a much larger fraction than the "only 50-75" people that the apologists for the Left sometimes seem to often quote when assessing these "protests".

It's not lost on me either how the Obama and Clinton camps have said absolutely nothing to condemn these vile actions as well... Just like their supporters, who instead, stand around and watch, cheer, encourage and even take part in such actions... Even that pshycopath, Democratic Rep. Val Demings, called the Berkeley riots a "beautiful sight". She should be removed from public office.

I just don't get where all this anger comes from when it wasn't present for all these decades of decline during the former Administrations.

Some will say that it will get even worse under Trump but for one, I doubt that. I very seriously doubt that things will get that much more worse under Trump than they would have under Clinton had she of won.

Is it possible that Trump's just one of the gang and trying to fool us all??? Sure it's possible, but time will weed that answer out, and I for one, will afford him that bit of time to prove himself. And even if he does eventually prove himself to be a piece of $**t, I'll still not go out and destroy property, attack people, set things ablaze and so on.

[Likely Guy]

My wall of text is tiny.

[Baz Dane]

4 minutes ago, Yamato said:

"Protesting for what?" can use some follow through.  I read the OP again and moving beyond the rant and into the solution stage, what would you like to be done?   You've got over a million protesters on Jan. 21, do you really think you're speaking for all of them and what they're protesting about with what you included in your OP?  

When Trump visits Saudi Arabia, please explain how that's not going to be "treason".  Is there some reason to think Trump won't commit this "treason"?   

What would you like to be done?   I'd like to discuss the same thing on the Iran thread.   If you post about Saudi Arabia and Iran a lot already you shouldn't need me to make you, but sorry, I am going to ask.

I see George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the rear view mirror.   I see Trump through the windshield, let's go that way now.   Since your OP rant about Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump forgot to include Saudi Arabia on the immigration ban.    To answer your OP's question, there's something to protest about.  If your rants about Saudi Arabia are for real, that won't be difficult.

Eventually (hopefully) we'll get to the point where we can move past Hillary Clinton and onto who's running things, now would be a good time.   But if you really want to wait a few years to reach conclusions about Donald Trump, I'm sure over the years there'll still be plenty of other material about someone else to keep dredging up instead.   How much longer you can act like there's nothing to protest though...that time is now up.

Read my post that follows yours about "protesting" and "rioting" ... In hindsight, I retract... meaning I made a mistake and will admit that... the word "Protest".

As for Saudi Arabia... I've already explained that... You and your "treason" crap again eh 

I'll address the 7 country ban and Saudi Arabia on it when I get the time... Unfortunately I have to split for now.

But I can see that all you want to do is argue.

What is it that YOU want to see happen right now? Tell us that perhaps in the meantime.

[Yamato]

6 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

Hardly evidence IMO... Just a bunch of MSM led twisting of things to lead you to THINK what things he might do.

BUT... I grant that people have a right to "protest" the things you mention, so I will not argue that you are wrong in saying that.

I should have actually used the word "Rioting" in the OP, because I really have no problems with an actual peaceful protest. Even if I do not agree with the topic But it's the other BS that infuriates me. The multiple assaults on innocent people, the rioting, destroying property, setting things on fire including cars, cheering on the carnage as it's happening, plus also things like the MSM's slanted take on things(including the spreading of fake news, such as the Iraqi guy's mother dying at the airport for one example), the Hollywood stars' meltdown such as Rosie O'Donnell ridiculous call for Martial Law

Actually no you shouldn't have, and yeah you do.   Your OP doesn't have anything to do with rioting, your OP was more about the lack of reason the brainwashed protesters had for protesting.  

Now, you're talking about rioting, and borrowing from Michael Moore's vocabulary to describe it.   Sorry I can spot a partisan hit job when I see one, or two, or i = 1 to n.   Don't take it personally, but your posts are what they are.

[Yamato]

12 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

Read my post that follows yours about "protesting" and "rioting" ... In hindsight, I retract... meaning I made a mistake and will admit that... the word "Protest".

As for Saudi Arabia... I've already explained that... You and your "treason" crap again eh 

I'll address the 7 country ban and Saudi Arabia on it when I get the time... Unfortunately I have to split for now.

But I can see that all you want to do is argue.

What is it that YOU want to see happen right now? Tell us that perhaps in the meantime.

It's all there in the Iran and immigration threads.  Hope to see you there.

That treason crap again, yep.  You said the gay stuff aside, it's TREASON.   So what does the treason consist of exactly?   It's a discussion not an argument.  You obviously want to discuss things too so don't be afraid when you get replies.

[coolguy]

A news reporter asked these 3 dorks why wherre they protesting trump and he kept asking them and he had no clue. They just kept saying because and the guy said give me a reason and they did have any lol there justt sheep lol 

[+DieChecker]

On 2/7/2017 at 11:49 AM, Farmer77 said:

I dont remember Obama belittling and eroding the confidence in the checks and balances. Thats really why the outrage from my part. 

I fully confess to not being as politically active or aware when Obama was in office. Several factors played into that. A whole lot of burnout  and a whole lot of cynicism being the major ones. The 2016 election really energized me. Not because im a partisan but because of the wholly horrific faux "choices" we had. 

I truly dont believe Trump is actually any different than Obama or Bush or Clinton etc etc all the way back to 1963. So its not about the other guy , its about the degradation of our nation. 

Amen brother.

I regularly point out to my more Liberal friends that if the Democrats had simply run almost any other candidate, or if they'd just been a little less complacent, then Trump wouldn't be President. The blame falls squarely on the Democrat's shoulders in my opinion. They are the ones who ran a bad candidate and stayed home on voting day. 

[+DieChecker]

On 2/7/2017 at 11:55 AM, Farmer77 said:

Hillary will never reform Wall Street. She is owned by Wall Street!

 Was one of his tweets about Hillary and wall street. The obvious implication is that he would, the dude ran as a populist. 

He did, but I don't remember him being overly vocal about Wall Street, other then calling out Hypocrisy on the Democrat side. If he did, it would have been only in passing, and not a mainline issue for him.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 08/02/2017 at 1:45 PM, Likely Guy said:

My wall of text is tiny.

Just like Trumps hands 

[MWoo7]

* LOUD whistle *  "FOUL , one point taken away"  above the belt gentlemen ahahahahhahahahaha !

[Uncle Sam]

On 2/7/2017 at 1:48 PM, Ellapennella said:

 I see that.

 

That Asian guy is spot on... the thought that all whites are racist, privileged, homophobic, or islamphobic is moronic. When the rioters start shouting that, they are the racist, they believing a single race is the cause of all problems. They will attack, slander, or smear that race. Might as well hang whites from the trees or enslave them, because they see us as sub-humans now. By dehumanizing the other side, they gave the protesters and rioters the go ahead to attack us and torture us. And other races who defend us are called uncle toms, that is bull****, they are the ones that see the truth of the issue. Funny thing is... it was the democrats that wanted to keep slavery and fought for slavery in the courts, while the republicans overwhelmingly voted to free the slaves. Hell in the civil rights movement, it was the republicans who voted to give blacks and other races the right to vote. So why is the democrats always trying to garner minority votes? It was under the democrats watch when the United States got divided so deeply between liberals and republicans. It was under the democrats watch that we bombed more countries since WWII. It was under the democrats watch that we had more home grown terrorists attacks on our soil. It was under the democrats watch that we had more school shoots due to the introducing of no gun zones. It was under the democrats watch that more people are on S.S.I. and unable to find jobs. It was under the democrats watch that United States unintentionally help create ISIS. So why should we have democrats in the white house when they are so out of touch with reality, that it is actually causing harm to the world and United States as a whole? Until they get back in touch reality, the working class Americans, and understand our sovereign rights; then they have no place in power. Inciting violence and applauding riots really doesn't help this imagine either, it hurts them even further when the rest of the country outside of New York and California sees them on a war path to destroy or hinder free speech.

I will tell you why democrats want minorities to vote for them, so they can control them and use them against the republicans. That isn't democracy at all, it is now a civil war which one side is fighting and the other side wants to avoid it by all means. But there will be a time when they cross the line, that line will lead to the other citizens pushing back, that line will be when a liberal decides to slaughter the other side. It is leading up to this with the violence escalating to this point and it will not be pretty. They are out manned and out gunned in every aspect, sad part about this, the liberals are a generation (Lost Generation.) If civil war breaks out, they will lose and it will be bloody, the other side would have no choice but to fight back against this generation in the end. I don't want a civil war among citizens, I do want a civil war with citizens vs. the government, to restore the power to the people. A civil war between citizens means no body wins in the end and a generation will be lost except for the few quiet millions from that generation that are in touch reality.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Uncle Sam

[Yamato]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

He did, but I don't remember him being overly vocal about Wall Street, other then calling out Hypocrisy on the Democrat side. If he did, it would have been only in passing, and not a mainline issue for him.

When he was vocal about Wall St itself, it was a "bubble." 

Now that he's in charge, it's not a bubble.  #facepalm

Yeah he ran as a populist, and it was fake.

[Astra.]

5 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Just like Trumps hands 

Remember this... 

 

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Yamato said:

When he was vocal about Wall St itself, it was a "bubble." 

Now that he's in charge, it's not a bubble.  #facepalm

Yeah he ran as a populist, and it was fake.

From just before the election....

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/where-do-clinton-and-trump-stand-on-wall-street/

Quote

As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton square off in the presidential election, one big dividing line is Wall Street. The Republican standard-bearer says he wants to rip up the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank Act enacted in response to the financial crisis. His Democratic opponent says she wants to extend its reach. But the picture is more complex. 

You're making an argument that simply is not supportable. Trump was never "Anti" Wall Street, though Hillary "said" that she was. However she was into Wall Street deeper then ever Trump was. 

[+DieChecker]

http://www.thewrap.com/new-poll-says-president-trump-is-more-trusted-than-untruthful-news-media/

Quote

An Emerson College poll found that 49 percent of U.S. voters believe that the Trump administration is “truthful,” while only 39 percent feel that way about the news media. Worse, for the so-called “opposition party,” 53 percent of those surveyed described the media as “untruthful.”

 

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Astra. said:

Remember this... 

 

Snopes says there's no correlation between manhood and hand size...

http://www.snopes.com/hand-size-trump-debate/

Spoiler

But, despite what the two presidential candidates were arguing over (hand size correlating to penile length) studieshave shown that despite a mountain of anecdotal evidence, there appears to be no correlation between hand or foot size and penis size:

Just saying.... 

 

Also....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/05/yes-donald-trumps-hands-are-actually-pretty-small/?utm_term=.18ea05d2034c

Edited February 10, 2017 by DieChecker

[Yamato]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

From just before the election....

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/where-do-clinton-and-trump-stand-on-wall-street/

You're making an argument that simply is not supportable. Trump was never "Anti" Wall Street, though Hillary "said" that she was. However she was into Wall Street deeper then ever Trump was. 

My argument?  So, he was not a Populist?    But Populists aren't generally pro-Wall St.   Donald Trump is.  Therefore, IF HE RAN AS a populist, THEN HE WAS completely FoS.   No argument more than just logic.

[MWoo7]

Yeah but its what he does with those hands , like signing orders and oh... mmmmm forgot about certain accusations , think I just lost a point ! : (   Oh-No here they come, maybe I'll just go sit over here for while

[ellapenella]

11 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

That Asian guy is spot on... the thought that all whites are racist, privileged, homophobic, or islamphobic is moronic. When the rioters start shouting that, they are the racist, they believing a single race is the cause of all problems. They will attack, slander, or smear that race. Might as well hang whites from the trees or enslave them, because they see us as sub-humans now. By dehumanizing the other side, they gave the protesters and rioters the go ahead to attack us and torture us. And other races who defend us are called uncle toms, that is bull****, they are the ones that see the truth of the issue. Funny thing is... it was the democrats that wanted to keep slavery and fought for slavery in the courts, while the republicans overwhelmingly voted to free the slaves. Hell in the civil rights movement, it was the republicans who voted to give blacks and other races the right to vote. So why is the democrats always trying to garner minority votes? It was under the democrats watch when the United States got divided so deeply between liberals and republicans. It was under the democrats watch that we bombed more countries since WWII. It was under the democrats watch that we had more home grown terrorists attacks on our soil. It was under the democrats watch that we had more school shoots due to the introducing of no gun zones. It was under the democrats watch that more people are on S.S.I. and unable to find jobs. It was under the democrats watch that United States unintentionally help create ISIS. So why should we have democrats in the white house when they are so out of touch with reality, that it is actually causing harm to the world and United States as a whole? Until they get back in touch reality, the working class Americans, and understand our sovereign rights; then they have no place in power. Inciting violence and applauding riots really doesn't help this imagine either, it hurts them even further when the rest of the country outside of New York and California sees them on a war path to destroy or hinder free speech.

I will tell you why democrats want minorities to vote for them, so they can control them and use them against the republicans. That isn't democracy at all, it is now a civil war which one side is fighting and the other side wants to avoid it by all means. But there will be a time when they cross the line, that line will lead to the other citizens pushing back, that line will be when a liberal decides to slaughter the other side. It is leading up to this with the violence escalating to this point and it will not be pretty. They are out manned and out gunned in every aspect, sad part about this, the liberals are a generation (Lost Generation.) If civil war breaks out, they will lose and it will be bloody, the other side would have no choice but to fight back against this generation in the end. I don't want a civil war among citizens, I do want a civil war with citizens vs. the government, to restore the power to the people. A civil war between citizens means no body wins in the end and a generation will be lost except for the few quiet millions from that generation that are in touch reality.

 Have you heard these students as compared to the others ? Seriously, they haven't a clue.

NYC student walkout

 

 

[aztek]

wasted generation

[Astra.]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Snopes says there's no correlation between manhood and hand size...

Wow! - is that right ?......gee! I'm shocked 

Well, instead of Mr Trump bragging about the size of his phallus...and you felt the urge to defend 'IT' .....

then maybe he'd like to prove it...

 

 

[MWoo7]

hhhhhhhhaha! broke another chair! well obviously its a paramount attribute to some tooooo funny !

[Astra.]

17 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

hhhhhhhhaha! broke another chair! well obviously its a paramount attribute to some tooooo funny !

[+DieChecker]

15 hours ago, Yamato said:

My argument?  So, he was not a Populist?    But Populists aren't generally pro-Wall St.   Donald Trump is.  Therefore, IF HE RAN AS a populist, THEN HE WAS completely FoS.   No argument more than just logic.

Oh my Gawd... Well, if your self created "If-Then" statements help you sleep at night....

That's like saying Bernie Sanders leans Communist, so he must be a supporter of Vladimir Putin, or Fidel Castro, or Mao. Your logic is fallacious, untrue. Based on nothing but your own definitions of words you are choosing to use. That's not logic, it's just opinion.

Someone who runs as a Populist doesn't need to have 100% lock step with even the common definition, much less some internet pundit's definition. 

Edited February 11, 2017 by DieChecker