Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

. If you can’t see the “damage” done to the GOP by this circus being led by a real estate huckster, you’re dangerously stupid and willfully blind.

Trump is not smart enough for the job, which is ridiculous on the face of it.

Quote:

Trump is not smart enough for the job, which is ridiculous on the face of it.

Trump delegates very well. Reagan delegated very well.

Over on CNN’s State of the Union, he answered a similar question with, “I went to the Wharton School of Finance. I was an excellent student. I’m a smart person. I built a tremendous company. I had a show called The Apprentice that NBC desperately wanted me to do another season. I do all this stuff. Do you think I make a stupid statement like that?”

This rehearsed inarticulacy, with its weird boasts and odd syntax, is Trump’s signal to voters that, like a rightwing version of Warren Beatty in Bulworth, you should vote for him because he just doesn’t care. It’s an odd paradox, a kind of nihilism masquerading as the human touch, one that has served Nigel Farage well in Britain. Both men give the impression they’ll say any old thing, since caution is the refuge of the weak. Both use the word “stuff” a lot. (“There’s important stuff to contemplate, about Labour in the south-east of England,” said Farage earlier this year), a verbal shrug that says: I’m so sure of myself I don’t mind sounding stupid.

And both have more than a pinch of self-mockery, something scarce on the ground in politics, which in Trump manifests itself as wild self-aggrandising: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”

Farage, on the other hand, knows that in England the way to ingratiate yourself is through self-deprecation, and so talks about how “useless” he is, confesses he’d be a bad prime minister and describes his own party’s manifesto as “a complete Horlicks”.

The Brits already know this, but as Trump watchers discovered in the US this week, it’s hard to land a blow on the guy who treats the whole thing as a joke

So, you’re just an objective observer, with no dog in the fight….

That’s convenient, since all your candidates are garbage.

It’s surprising you don’t intuitively know who’ll be the nominee with all your profound political insight.

God, you’re full of crap. You “know”? You can “see”? You know bupkus.

If you think these republican candidates are interchangeable with each other and that it makes no difference if it’s Trump, Rubio or Bush, you’re ignorant as hell.

If you can’t see the “damage” done to the GOP by this circus being led by a real estate huckster, you’re dangerously stupid and willfully blind.

I wouldn't say that. I'm relieved that the Democrats are destined to lose in 2016. They really are a grave threat to American freedom.

We'll see how Mr. Trump does in the primaries.

I did not think you were correct when you said over a year ago that it would be the gun issue that wins it for the R's, but as of last week it looks like Hillary is determined to make it so.

Romney's campaign manager about 10 days ago promised that Trump would be out by the time the first vote is cast.

But Hillary's recently-expressed hatred of our freedom will certainly help the Republicans win.

Hillary Clinton said Friday that mandatory gun buy-back programs like ones in Australia are “worth looking into,” sparking criticism that the Democratic presidential front-runner would, if elected, impose gun-confiscation efforts.

Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” Clinton responded.

“This validates what the NRA has said all along,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”

Cox said Clinton’s comments echo recent ones by President Obama, making “very clear” that the underlying goal of gun-control advocates is confiscation.

No, there is a difference. The baker knows that he/her is helping fags get married. The seller has no idea if the buyer is a shooter, just that he/her has passed a back round check. And the sale is legal.

Damn you gun-bots are stupid. A gun buy back is not confiscation. People voluntarily bring their guns in and sell them, but it's hard to believe that anyone needs this explained to them. I never know whether you chumps are really this stupid, or if you just act ignorant to make your stupid points.

Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws.

"Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States..."

Quote:

"Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States..."

(Besides being willfully ignorant and intentionally misleading)Why would you focus on the Australian buybacks - it's not done that way in the US?

she did not know how such a scheme could be implemented in the US.

The key part of that last was "As I understand It". You are twisting things to fit your goofy one-sided narrative. Look out!! They're coming to get our guns!!!

This is what was actually said in that town hall meeting in New Hampshire:

"Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked Clinton.

The question referenced the buyback policy that Australia introduced in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where gunman Martin Bryant killed 35 people using a variety of guns at a historic tourist site in the island state of Tasmania.

As she answered the question at Friday's town hall meeting, Clinton said that the evidence appeared to "support" Australia's policy.

"By offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future," she said, before adding that she did not know how such a scheme could be implemented in the US.

Wild, irresponsible exaggeration to keep gun owners in a state of perpetual fear of losing their guns. And simpletons like you just blindly follow suit.
You people are pathetic.

(Just for the record, the collection of guns-for-pay that Australia did, seriously reduced the number of gun deaths and gun violence.)

Your refusal to challenge Coldjoint says what sort of person you are, end of.

My support for Palestinian self determination is well known, so I take great pains to challenge Holocaust deniers/belittlers like Carlos le Baron or Krumple, because Anti Semitism has no place in the liberation of Palestine.

That's the sort of person I am, you are quite happy to sit alongside bigots because you're one of them. You don't challenge Coldjoint because you agree with him, your posts say as much, you're just too cowardly to stand by what you've said. You're just like the old school racist who has a go at all blacks then tells the one black guy in the room that obviously he didn't mean him, he's different.

It says I could careless with CJ says because I don't pay CJ any mind. His rantings are just noise which I find easy to ignore. The reason what CJ says bothers you so much is because you two are different sides of the same coin. That's why it bothers you so much. You want people to step up and go against CJ? Why? Because you are not man enough to do it yourself? I give as much thought to CJ's posts as I do to the bug crawling across the grass.