If these voters were so opposed to lying liars, why would get behind and then stick with a fabulist and serial exaggerator? Trump isn’t a man who made his mark in life with probity - he’s demonstrably dishonest, he just happens to never have held office before.
So, no, it isn’t a burning desire to support an honest man instead of a lying politician. It’s something different. Which I noted.
The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.
It could also be reasoned that if a politician is a liar and says that Trump is bad, then the opposite must be true.
Maybe that is why his popularity soared in proportion his opponents attacks.
Maybe.
And since I’ve been so embarrassingly owned by TB, Thunderbolt, could you do me the honor of explaining how Mitt actually answered the first question in this debate in any substantial way?
Maybe it is my eyes deceiving me, but that there looks like complete bullshit. From a politician. And exactly the same way that Trump responded to the same question.
If anyone said these things today it would be considered deeply racist plain and simple.
There’s more than what Jefferson said, Ben Franklin discussed his concern about the purity of black people
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson didn’t want black and white people to live amongst each other because he didn’t want blacks “staining” white blood
[Quote]
“…among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us [America] a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he [Black slave] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” [/quote]
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/Jefferson--Notes.htm
Point being the founding fathers didn’t believe in racial equality of today and would never support mass immigration from around the world
Check out this woman lay the smack down on Sally Kohn
It’s funny that you keep using the phrase “mass” immigration. I know that numbers are hard to grasp and phrases like “a million Muslims” are especially effective when pandering to the moron demographic, but world population is over seven billion people. The US population is over 300 million. Relativity matters. For some reason “million” carries this powerful connotation to people. In a city of 300,000 people (about the size of the city in which I currently reside) seeing 1,000 new people move in over an 8 year period wouldn’t be considered “mass immigration” - it would just be normal turnover of people moving around the country. But somehow on the larger scale, of the entire U.S. population, saying that Obama has “imported a million Muslims” means we’re talking about “mass immigration,”
usmc has made this point several times, and you continue to ignore it so I don’t really expect any difference here. It’s just funny.
Agreed, today being the key word.
People didn’t talk/write the same in 1784. It was a completely different world. To claim Jefferson is racist because he used the word “inferior” as a description during an analysis based on observation doesn’t make sense.
I’ve posted a number of counterexamples from other influential early American’s like Madison and Washington.
How is this racist?
What was I saying about context earlier…?
It’s a scare tactic and nothing more.
I’m too lazy to write a full post explaining the same points so quickly:
-World population is irrelevant
-13% of the US population is now foreign born. This number hasn’t been that high since 1800s.
-94 million people currently out of work with automation looming. Most immigration is low skilled. Where will these people get jobs?
-it’s not happening at assimilation levels, it’s happening at replacement levels. America was 88% white in the 1960s vs 65% now.
-Check out the links I posted on how large amounts of diversity is bad for communities.
It’s absolutely disgusting that you defend these comments. What’s immoral then is immoral now.
If you think it’s okay to say those things that makes YOU the racist
You really are a fucking idiot.
I’m done. Your intellectual ability is severely lacking.
I was the steadfast conservative. In other writings, I have have fallen into categories called paleo - conservative or religious conservative (I think it was called).
smh, bismark, thunderbolt, activities guy, you on some views
Ummm…what “neo con” view have I expressed?
I’m genuinely curious what bins me into the “neo con” category.
Thinking Trump is an awful choice for president doesn’t make me a “neo con.”
I guess we just see different things. Bismark, I might agree with, but I don’t know his views enough to say one way or the other.
Me, on a few things, ya. Certainly not in general, though.
Edit:
More to the point, this is why I hate labels. You could easily make the case that I’m Libertarian, but, again, only on a few things. I believe strongly in limited government so am I a Paleoconservative? Well, sort of, but not really because I don’t believe in restricting immigration unless there’s a distinct and easily identifiable purpose for doing so. Not that it isn’t obvious, but I certainly don’t believe in blanket restrictions based on race or religion.
Powerpuff had a nice post on another PWI thread about this. I don’t know if I’m a “liberal” or “conservative” or a “neoconservative” because my positions on various issues are all different.
I don’t think Trump will be a bad President because I’m a liberal or because I’m conservative or because I’m a neoconservative. I think Trump will be a bad President for about a thousand reasons, but none of them is “…because I’m a (Political Label).”
Old school Racism is the idea that skills, abilities and “talent” or characteristics are based on race. I’m not a scholar, but wasn’t assigning characteristics by race like the accepted science in 1798?
Saying treating a man like shit, turns him to shit seems at least a little forward thinking.
-Miami bro, there is plenty of room down here for you. No state income tax, and a lower cost of living, that’s like a 20% swing for you right out of the gate.
So wait, you’re saying that maybe we should use a little context of the times instead of interpreting the words literally as though they were written today?
Hm. I don’t know man. That sounds kinda crazy.
This is part of my point. It was normal to analyze a subject in this manner in the late 1700s. Jefferson’s words were dispassionate and scientific in nature. That doesn’t mean it was moral or immoral. Obviously, the ownership of another person is immoral, but taking a quote or writing from 1784 and applying the social norms/context of 2016 is stupid.
Don’t be a racist idiot 
I’d love to live further south; unfortunately, we just bought a new house in the people’s republic of Maryland… Maybe when we retire; although, I prefer Cali’s weather over Florida’s (couldn’t live in CA, though).
Texas, perhaps…
