Search results

Again, I don't believe that Trump is any less self-absorbed and conceited in his agenda than Hillary and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. If your greatest fear is another war it's downright bizarre that you put your trust in Trump to prevent that.

When his spins are myopic bigotry then yes, people will be alarmed.

It's actually not hard to imagine that at all.

The only way Hillary would turn out worse than Trump is if she were consistently landing on advisers who are worse than Trump. Which, while possible, is not as statistically probable as the 100% chance you'll get a Trump choice on every issue by having Trump in office instead, since he "consults...

So a vote for Hillary is actually "playing the slots," because at each instance you pull the lever and wait to see what lucky lobbyists or advisers come up in each reel to influence her decision making. That's a horrible system, but it's better than the options Trump offers.

That's exactly what a vote for Hillary is. The lesser of two evils. I never liked Hillary even a smidgen. The idea is that Hillary is almost entirely amoral, and is only interested in furthering her career. Thus, she is likely to bend to the whims and wishes of those around her, as we've seen.

I have trouble believing I would ever call someone a platitude given that platitudes are statements and not people. I said that you both had a "fetish for platitudes," but what you're suggesting is that saying someone has a foot fetish is tantamount to calling them a foot.

I didn't call you a platitude. I said that you dispense platitudes, which you just admitted to doing.

Nor am I. But I'm also not "down" for a Trump presidency. Hello, dissonance, my old friend...

By that logic, those stupid settlers should have exercized acquiescence under British rule in the 1700s.

And of course there's also the irony that a platitude dispenser is concerned with the novelty of his vocabulary.

The point is not their use, it's the reaction you have to them. You can feel that "yas" is pointless and insipid, and I would actually agree with you. But the fact that you said it was "disgusting," specifically, is suggestive at best.

I'm curious if you say "disgusting" every time you're confronted with the word "dude."

Why?

Depends what you consider a "race." He's definitely an Islamophobe.

You might recall how I am often accused of being a jaded cynic for judging people "too early." Then time passes and everyone eventually says, "Oh, yeah. Brute was right from the start." It's like that, expect instead of being a pompous DOA player it's the President of the United States.

I'm not dodging your point. I am continually addressing your points, which seem to come back to, "I choose to believe Donald Trump when he says he will try to do right by the American people." I can't do that because I know better. I happen to be a pretty good judge of character.

So your defense of Trump is predicated on the fact that he's angry with things? Even better. I can think of some demagogues and dictators that "change[d] things because [they hated] them." Not the most flattering basis for a political leader.

Why would Hillary be better? She hasn't suggested building a puerile wall to fix an imaginary problem. She hasn't suggested banning all Muslims from entering the country. Oh, and my personal favorite, she isn't glorifying the idea of assassinating the children and families of suspected terrorists.

They wouldn't be so terrified if they didn't believe what he was saying? Trying to navigate the double-negatives, so then they would be terrified if they did believe what he was saying? Well, yeah. That's reason enough to be terrified, considering the things he says. Not sure how that's a defense.