I got this whenI tried to open that link:
Oklahoma Shooters - Error
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.
I have a PERSONAL message for the Muslim father whose son was killed in Iraq
- Thread starter DA 20
- Start Date
I got this whenI tried to open that link:
Oklahoma Shooters - Error
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.
HMMM..... go to the boiler room and look for the thread that says "which democrat are you voting for next".
I'm not a member of the boiler room.
You can join if you wish.
They don't have to be heroes in order to be useful in defeating the most corrupt politician since Huey Long. Your party had an opportunity to nominate one of the least corrupt politicians they've ever had, and they actively conspired to torpedo him. At least our outsider was good enough to defeat the GOP machine.
So if you want your lying, hateful, manipulative, corrupt opportunist candidate to defeat our lying, allegedly racist, allegedly bigoted candidate, I'd say that says more about you than the candidates.
You parroting the left's shrill name calling indicates that you read (and believe) too many liberal coloring books.
If not, why don't you show that you are actually capable of an original thought and unpack how Assange, Putin and ISIS are heroes to the "right"?
While Trump hasn't lied about inside trading on "cattle futures", landing at an airport under "sniper fire", about what happened in Benghazi where 4 Americans died due to dereliction of duty or lied about his emails ... I would bet he has lied about something. But to stay on the theme about you having a coherent if possible original thought ... Why don't you share where he said something bigoted or racist?
I don't particularly like Trump but the racist label being thrown at him is just BS. It is never backed up and Liberals don't think it needs to be backed up because once used it means - "don't have to listen to anything the accused or his supporters say because I have assumed the moral high ground". Except that its a total fail in this case. There are many reasons to take issue with Mr Trump but racism is not one of them. The only attempt at defense of that label has been tied to his statements on immigration limitations.
I don't find it convincing that if one believes that immigration to the US should be via a controlled, lawful procedure then that equals racism. Or sometimes its tied to saying he'll deport people who in the country illegally -- odd that discussing enforcing existing law (regardless of how realistic you may think the plan is) should be taken as a sign of racism. It can't be related to his business dealings where by all accounts he has shown no sign of racism/sexism in his professional dealings.
Then there is the "racists support him", guilt by association, argument. Usually it is not said that he is trying to appeal to them just that they support him so therefore...well you draw your own conclusions (sarcasm). No need to actually discuss the merits/weaknesses of the argument as long as you can show that the "wrong" people like it.
I don't find it convincing that if one believes that immigration to the US should be via a controlled, lawful procedure then that equals racism. Or sometimes its tied to saying he'll deport people who in the country illegally -- odd that discussing enforcing existing law (regardless of how realistic you may think the plan is) should be taken as a sign of racism. It can't be related to his business dealings where by all accounts he has shown no sign of racism/sexism in his professional dealings.
Then there is the "racists support him", guilt by association, argument. Usually it is not said that he is trying to appeal to them just that they support him so therefore...well you draw your own conclusions (sarcasm). No need to actually discuss the merits/weaknesses of the argument as long as you can show that the "wrong" people like it.
Dishonest debate tactics abound when the lefties discuss Trump. To be honest, everyone does it from time to time, because our society pretty much runs on hyperbole these days. However, the left is all out of proportion when it comes to Trump.
You mean the allegation she worked for, and was President of, a company that supplies ISIS with money and materials? IMHO, it's not nearly enough to get her busted - she did work for the company decades ago, before ISIS was even a glimmer in al-Zarqawi's eye. Old history, where one could adopt Hillary's famous shrug and say, "What difference does it make?" Now if Assange can provide incontrovertible evidence of Hillary's continued and knowing participation in this company's dealings, that would be a different story altogether.
Similar threads
