Who are you voting for?

[justjoinedtopost]

MADMAN climbing the Trump Tower in NYC using suction cups! Watch live here:

Looks like you called this one right.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-scales-trump-tower-manhattan-suction-cups-article-1.2746270
"A dim-witted Donald Trump fan used suction cups to scale the mogul’s namesake Midtown tower Wednesday in a failed bid to meet the blowhard."

 

[Osmia]

Looks like you called this one right.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-scales-trump-tower-manhattan-suction-cups-article-1.2746270
"A dim-witted Donald Trump fan used suction cups to scale the mogul’s namesake Midtown tower Wednesday in a failed bid to meet the blowhard."

With any luck, Trump's competitive spirit will kick in and he will seek to outperform this stunt by climbing his building barehanded

 

[justjoinedtopost]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/6422...ally-dredges-disastrous-old-donald-trump-deal

This is a strong candidate. The kind of man America needs. Armed only with bigotry and faith-based economics, he will lead us through the wilderness towards that shimmering image of the Gipper, just like he did with his airline. He will not let ISIS get re-elected and take away our 2nd Amendment (unless the election is rigged).

With any luck, Trump's competitive spirit will kick in and he will seek to outperform this stunt by climbing his building barehanded

If he falls, I hope he lands on Clinton.

 

[JoleneBrody]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/6422...ally-dredges-disastrous-old-donald-trump-deal

This is a strong candidate. The kind of man America needs. Armed only with bigotry and faith-based economics, he will lead us through the wilderness towards that shimmering image of the Gipper, just like he did with his airline. He will not let ISIS get re-elected and take away our 2nd Amendment (unless the election is rigged).

If he falls, I hope he lands on Clinton.

The sad thing is that this incorrect article is still up on hannitys site with no corrections and still being shared on social media like its a kardashian.

 

[Osmia]

Maybe there should be a new thread titled, "Things Trump says that make you go 'WTF'?"

Today's edition:

On CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday, when an interviewer pressed Mr. Trump on the propriety of claiming that Mr. Obama had founded the Islamic State, Mr. Trump said it was “absolutely” the case and added: “Is there something wrong with saying that? Are people complaining that I said he was the founder of ISIS?”

Later, in an interview with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Mr. Trump was given an opportunity to clarify. But he did not budge.

“You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Mr. Hewitt suggested, leaving Mr. Trump an opening.

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Mr. Hewitt replied, “But he’s not sympathetic to them,” referring to President Obama. “He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.”

“I don’t care,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that, that was the founding of ISIS, O.K.?”​

And some good news (from the same NY Times article):

Even as he seeks to vilify Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump on Thursday sounded uncharacteristically fatalistic about the election. In an interview with CNBC, he acknowledged the possibility that he could lose, but insisted that he intended to stick with his unorthodox campaign style.

He pledged to “just keep doing the same thing I’m doing right now,” adding that he was the only presidential candidate who told things “straight” and was “a truth-teller.”

“At the end, it’s either going to work or I’m going to, you know, I’m going to have a very, very nice long vacation,” said Mr. Trump, who has rarely before conceded the possibility of defeat.​

 

[Lexi Emerson]

Maybe there should be a new thread titled, "Things Trump says that make you go 'WTF'?"

Today's edition:

On CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday, when an interviewer pressed Mr. Trump on the propriety of claiming that Mr. Obama had founded the Islamic State, Mr. Trump said it was “absolutely” the case and added: “Is there something wrong with saying that? Are people complaining that I said he was the founder of ISIS?”

Later, in an interview with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Mr. Trump was given an opportunity to clarify. But he did not budge.

“You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Mr. Hewitt suggested, leaving Mr. Trump an opening.

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Mr. Hewitt replied, “But he’s not sympathetic to them,” referring to President Obama. “He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.”

“I don’t care,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that, that was the founding of ISIS, O.K.?”​

And some good news (from the same NY Times article):

Even as he seeks to vilify Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump on Thursday sounded uncharacteristically fatalistic about the election. In an interview with CNBC, he acknowledged the possibility that he could lose, but insisted that he intended to stick with his unorthodox campaign style.

He pledged to “just keep doing the same thing I’m doing right now,” adding that he was the only presidential candidate who told things “straight” and was “a truth-teller.”

“At the end, it’s either going to work or I’m going to, you know, I’m going to have a very, very nice long vacation,” said Mr. Trump, who has rarely before conceded the possibility of defeat.​

If you want a good place to go to read all the "wtf" worthy things he says or does and for other fun conversations about Trump, I present to you my current favorite subreddit: https://reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/

 

[Osmia]

If you want a good place to go to read all the "wtf" worthy things he says or does and for other fun conversations about Trump, I present to you my current favorite subreddit: https://reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/

LOL, I'll check it out.

Politifact even has an RSS feed of Trump's statements, with their facts checked.

 

[ACFFAN69]

Maybe there should be a new thread titled, "Things Trump says that make you go 'WTF'?"

Today's edition:

On CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday, when an interviewer pressed Mr. Trump on the propriety of claiming that Mr. Obama had founded the Islamic State, Mr. Trump said it was “absolutely” the case and added: “Is there something wrong with saying that? Are people complaining that I said he was the founder of ISIS?”

Later, in an interview with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Mr. Trump was given an opportunity to clarify. But he did not budge.

“You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Mr. Hewitt suggested, leaving Mr. Trump an opening.

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Mr. Hewitt replied, “But he’s not sympathetic to them,” referring to President Obama. “He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.”

“I don’t care,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that, that was the founding of ISIS, O.K.?”​

And some good news (from the same NY Times article):

Even as he seeks to vilify Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump on Thursday sounded uncharacteristically fatalistic about the election. In an interview with CNBC, he acknowledged the possibility that he could lose, but insisted that he intended to stick with his unorthodox campaign style.

He pledged to “just keep doing the same thing I’m doing right now,” adding that he was the only presidential candidate who told things “straight” and was “a truth-teller.”

“At the end, it’s either going to work or I’m going to, you know, I’m going to have a very, very nice long vacation,” said Mr. Trump, who has rarely before conceded the possibility of defeat.​

It's extremely hyperbolic, but he has a point. Overthrowing Gudaffi in Libya helped ISIS a lot, a big reason ISIS is so well armed is from the Wests funding and weapons provided to the syrian opposition to Assad, many of which were fundamentalists that switched to ISIS when it became one of the largest rebel groups. Most of ISIS weapons and equipment are "made in America".

The biggest argument though is, there would almost certainly be no ISIS if the West didn't try to overthrow Assad. The only reason that Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi split from Al Qaeda was because he wanted control of Syria and Iraq. Al Qaeda instead was supporting Al Nusra Front in Syria, and trying to limit his power to only Iraq. If it wasn't for the Syrian war, ISIS nor Al Qaeda would be nearly as powerful as they are. Instead likely Syria would be mostly Shia (Assad) controlled.

ISIS would have been overrun without US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia's indirect (and in the case of the two latter, direct) support.

Granted, a strongly controlled Assad Syria would impact the United States economically, as Assad won't allow any oil pipelines through unless it is Iranian, because Russia can control Iran. The US would rather a Qatar pipeline. Qatar being a country in their debt (and without their support would be overthrown). Whereas Russia being completely reliant on oil needs the providing oil country to be one they have control over, they would only sign off on Iran, and by extension Assad's Syria would only sign off on Iran.

Russia can't afford the ruble to take any more hits (it's already decimated), at the same time they can't afford to lose Syria as they only have three warm water ports on the black sea: Ukraine (we all know how close that is to being lost), Georgia (they lost but brutally retook this already early 2000's from rebels, and it's still at risk of being retaken), and Syria. If Russia loses the black sea, they effectively lose all semblance of a super power.

tl;dr: Since you could argue ISIS would almost certainly not exist if not for the Syrian War, and Assad would almost certainly have won the Syrian war, he sort of has a point.

 

[SoTxBob]

I heard about a couple of these incidents but I had no clue the count was so high since her "no bill" for the email thing. Everybody seems to be jumping all over Trump for his buffoonery but I don't see any body count behind him....

 

[Osmia]

It's extremely hyperbolic, but he has a point. Overthrowing Gudaffi in Libya helped ISIS a lot, a big reason ISIS is so well armed is from the Wests funding and weapons provided to the syrian opposition to Assad, many of which were fundamentalists that switched to ISIS when it became one of the largest rebel groups. Most of ISIS weapons and equipment are "made in America".

The biggest argument though is, there would almost certainly be no ISIS if the West didn't try to overthrow Assad. The only reason that Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi split from Al Qaeda was because he wanted control of Syria and Iraq. Al Qaeda instead was supporting Al Nusra Front in Syria, and trying to limit his power to only Iraq. If it wasn't for the Syrian war, ISIS nor Al Qaeda would be nearly as powerful as they are. Instead likely Syria would be mostly Shia (Assad) controlled.

ISIS would have been overrun without US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia's indirect (and in the case of the two latter, direct) support.

Granted, a strongly controlled Assad Syria would impact the United States economically, as Assad won't allow any oil pipelines through unless it is Iranian, because Russia can control Iran. The US would rather a Qatar pipeline. Qatar being a country in their debt (and without their support would be overthrown). Whereas Russia being completely reliant on oil needs the providing oil country to be one they have control over, they would only sign off on Iran, and by extension Assad's Syria would only sign off on Iran.

Russia can't afford the ruble to take any more hits (it's already decimated), at the same time they can't afford to lose Syria as they only have three warm water ports on the black sea: Ukraine (we all know how close that is to being lost), Georgia (they lost but brutally retook this already early 2000's from rebels, and it's still at risk of being retaken), and Syria. If Russia loses the black sea, they effectively lose all semblance of a super power.

tl;dr: Since you could argue ISIS would almost certainly not exist if not for the Syrian War, and Assad would almost certainly have won the Syrian war, he sort of has a point.

The fundamental problem here is Trump's abuse of language. Words have meanings, and he habitually says things that, taken at face value, are absurd and generally regarded as lies. There's often a very small kernel of truth in what he says, and in this example (ISIS) that "truth" is that Obama's military interventions had the unintended consequences of disturbing regional power balances, leading to the emergence of actors like ISIS.

It's one thing to hold that the president, in his capacity as CIC, took actions that, as a side effect, allowed ISIS to emerge. It's quite another thing to say that Obama "founded" ISIS; that Obama was the proximate cause of the formation of ISIS, that Obama was necessary and sufficient for the formation of ISIS. That is a grotesque abuse of language. It's a grotesque abuse of the notion of objective truth.

There's a lot to criticize about Obama's military interventions in the ME. Why can't Trump just do that? Well, he'd have to actually be familiar (like you seem to be) with the history, the actors, the geopolitics of the ME. Based on many of his other statements, it's a safe bet that he has only a very superficial understanding at best. So, he speaks in broad-brush lies that are eroding his credibility with everyone but his hard core supporters, who apparently will accept anything Trump might do or say.

He might as well say that GHW Bush (41) was responsible for Al Qaeda's targeting of US interests due to his intervention in Kuwait and Iraq and the many inevitable spillover effects that had. That area would look a lot different now, maybe better in some respects, if Saddam Hussein hadn't been overthrown. History will have to be the final judge, but I have to assume that Bush was well aware of at least some of the possible downsides of invasion, and made his decisions by balancing the pros and cons.

 

[Ms_Diane]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wanted to say that of course Assange is Australian, and he has no standing to be expressing his preferences for US President. Of course, he has the right to do so, like anyone does; I just don't know why anyone would care what he has to say on the matter. And it's safe to say that no matter who is elected president, 2016 or 2020 or anytime after, there will still need to be oversight.

I like the idea of Wikileaks, just not its total identification with someone so self-serving and publicity seeking.

Well, I don't know how much I care about his opinion, I just found some his comments interesting, but I am also not American so I guess I don't haven any standing expressing any preferences either. The point about oversight was that some think there is not enough as it is, and that there is this opportunity to build a movement or maybe build on the movement that stemmed from Bernie's campaign, and this would include better oversight. In the interview he gave at the Green's convention he spoke a lot about corporate money and corporate influence in the White House, which led to the importance of oversight. ETA: I don't have much to say about Assange himself, I was just making a comment on something I found interesting.

 

[LuckySmiles]

I don't see this as very "wtf"...
It's something the US has a history of: at one time aiding Iraq and Saddam Hussein, roles in the Afghan-Soviet war that potentially helped facilitate the rise of the Al Qaeda, etc.etc.
ISIS and this history is a major component of American criticism around the world.

He's taking it to the extreme but if that's the only way to get people's attention, at this point so be it. Many people share in this line of thought, but maybe there are others who don't bother thinking about it until someone makes a big show of it. I don't like how he has to go about it, but I also don't like how little attention these real issues get. At this point it might be the only way.

So this is even kind of +1 point Trump IMO. But I could totally see people spinning this into the Obama closet muslim/islamaphobia thang to disregard it and label him a crazy person because of how over the top he is... when that's really got nothing to do with it. People with an understanding of US foreign policy know what he's talking about right away. And plenty of Americans are aware of these problems/not that dumb.

 

[SexySteph]

He's taking it to the extreme but if that's the only way to get people's attention, at this point so be it.

The problem is a lot of his followers are taking it at face value. You know those people that are still asking for Obama's birth certificates? Well now they're enraged that "Obama founded ISIS", he's a traitor, he literally created a terrorist organization.

Word choice matters, words convey meaning. And we don't need a president that doesn't grasp that.

 

[LuckySmiles]

The problem is a lot of his followers are taking it at face value. You know those people that are still asking for Obama's birth certificates? Well now they're enraged that "Obama founded ISIS", he's a traitor, he literally created a terrorist organization.

Word choice matters, words convey meaning. And we don't need a president that doesn't grasp that.

Disagree. This line of thinking continues the false assumption that everyone who'd vote for him is dumb. I see it bringing much needed attention to the much needed issues that Obama/Hillary supporters seem to have their heads in the sand in denial about.

 

[Osmia]

....
He's taking it to the extreme but if that's the only way to get people's attention, at this point so be it. Many people share in this line of thought, but maybe there are others who don't bother thinking about it until someone makes a big show of it. I don't like how he has to go about it, but I also don't like how little attention these real issues get. At this point it might be the only way.....

He doesn't have to "go about it" this way; he chooses to. Anyone who sees himself as a persuader (e.g., most politicians and business executives) should have no trouble properly explaining something like this "ISIS" accusation against Obama.

It's funny (no, actually, it's sad) that conservatives used to criticize the left for being postmodern relativists where there is no objective truth, and every utterance has to be considered in historical/political/cultural context, blah blah. Now, the right is doing it themselves!

And so, a day passes, and as sure as the sun rises again, Trump is now--predictably--saying it was sarcasm. So, he blatantly lies with his original statement, and then today, he lies again by saying it was sarcasm. It's so self-serving, because he gets to have it both ways: with the original statement he gets his followers all fired up (and what could possibly go wrong with that?), and today, he disavows what he plainly said and tells us, "It was just a joke, can't you tell a joke when you hear it?"

 

[LuckySmiles]

It's funny (no, actually, it's sad) that conservatives used to criticize the left for being postmodern relativists where there is no objective truth, and every utterance has to be considered in historical/political/cultural context, blah blah. Now, the right is doing it themselves!

It's so self-serving, because he gets to have it both ways: with the original statement he gets his followers all fired up

Who are these political conservatives? I am not a conservative and I would vote Trump. Stop fooling yourself, many of his voters are just regular people who have become frustrated with both parties. I took a taxi ride yesterday with a 80-ish year old Bernie supporter yesterday who'd vote Trump just because he isn't bought and paid for special interests.

Where are these riled up "followers" you speak up? Have you met them? I guess it's more comfortable for some people to keep insisting those that who want to vote for him, are mindless brainless "followers" instead of Americans who have valid points that disagree with them...

Oh yes he's 100% serious. There are also real MVP awards for founding terrorist organizations as well didn't you know? An awards ceremony is held every year at the Gullabilion

 

[Osmia]

Who are these political conservatives? I am not a conservative and I would vote Trump. Stop fooling yourself, many of his voters are just regular people who have become frustrated with both parties. I took a taxi ride yesterday with a 80-ish year old Bernie supporter yesterday who'd vote Trump just because he isn't bought and paid for special interests.

Where are these riled up "followers" you speak up? Have you met them? I guess it's more comfortable for some people to keep insisting those that who want to vote for him, are mindless brainless "followers" instead of Americans who have valid points that disagree with them...

Oh yes he's 100% serious. There are also real MVP awards for founding terrorist organizations as well didn't you know? An awards ceremony is held every year at the Gullabilion

<sigh>...

Could you answer this question, please:

Was Obama "the founder" of ISIS? Yes/no.

 

[JoleneBrody]

He doesn't have to "go about it" this way; he chooses to. Anyone who sees himself as a persuader (e.g., most politicians and business executives) should have no trouble properly explaining something like this "ISIS" accusation against Obama.

It's funny (no, actually, it's sad) that conservatives used to criticize the left for being postmodern relativists where there is no objective truth, and every utterance has to be considered in historical/political/cultural context, blah blah. Now, the right is doing it themselves!

And so, a day passes, and as sure as the sun rises again, Trump is now--predictably--saying it was sarcasm. So, he blatantly lies with his original statement, and then today, he lies again by saying it was sarcasm. It's so self-serving, because he gets to have it both ways: with the original statement he gets his followers all fired up (and what could possibly go wrong with that?), and today, he disavows what he plainly said and tells us, "It was just a joke, can't you tell a joke when you hear it?"

fucking hell.

Think he's better than Hilary all you want but to deny the issues with this man is stubbornly naive.

 

[LuckySmiles]

fucking hell.

Think he's better than Hilary all you want but to deny the issues with this man is stubbornly naive.

Lol yes totally naive,or maybe I spent years studying political strategy to recognize it when I see it. I don't have to agree with the style to recognize it for what it is, and I don't have to care if it bothers some people if it gets a necessary point across to others.

It bothers me far more that people aren't fed up with US foreign policy under the Obama administration.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Lol yes totally naive,or maybe I spent years studying political strategy to recognize it when I see it. I don't have to agree with the style to recognize it for what it is, and I don't have to care if it bothers some people if it gets a necessary point across to others.

It bothers me far more that people aren't fed up with US foreign policy under the Obama administration.

I'm fed up with pretty much everything, including Trump.
Seeing the danger with Trump doesn't have to mean people don't see the trouble with others or that they aren't also fed up with the current state of affairs.
There doesn't have to be sides, you do not have to accept and excuse away everything he says in order to still endorse him. It actually takes away from the power of the endorsement IMO.

A candidate unchecked by their own supporters will run over us all.

 

[SexySteph]

Disagree. This line of thinking continues the false assumption that everyone who'd vote for him is dumb. I see it bringing much needed attention to the much needed issues that Obama/Hillary supporters seem to have their heads in the sand in denial about.

No one said all of his supporters were stupid. But there are a big chunk of them that are still saying Obama is a secret Muslim that wasn't born in this country and Trump's statement fueled that fire even more. Because they took it at face value. Which is a fair thing to do, the leader of this country should be stating things in a clear enough way that people can take his statements at face value.

Also, their doesn't have to be an either/or dichotomy. I'm an Obama supporter, I'll be voting for Hilary and I'm still able to objectively have issues with his foreign policy. Perhaps Trump's followers don't feel they can be critical of things he says or does while still supporting him, but we're not all like that.

 

[Osmia]

Well, a little good news. My brother, who's upper middle class, educated and normally a Republican, was all-in for Trump until that bad week Trump had after the democrat's convention. All of that cumulative stuff apparently had an effect on him. He's not sure how he's going to vote. Based on the polling, I'd say a lot of Trump supporters are reassessing who they'll vote for. I suggested libertarian to my brother, but he thinks it's a wasted vote.

However, Gary Johnson, who is a former governor of New Mexico, is polling in the 10% range, and the sites that will be hosting the presidential debates have been instructed to be prepared for a third candidate podium. Johnson seems to be on track to have the best showing for a third party candidate since Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Plus, Johnson's running mate is William Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts for 6 years in the 1990s.

Something I didn't realize, or had forgotten, was that at one point in the 1992 presidential race, Perot was ahead of Clinton and Bush.

 

[LuckySmiles]

No one said all of his supporters were stupid. But there are a big chunk of them that are still saying Obama is a secret Muslim that wasn't born in this country and Trump's statement fueled that fire even more. Because they took it at face value. Which is a fair thing to do, the leader of this country should be stating things in a clear enough way that people can take his statements at face value.

Also, their doesn't have to be an either/or dichotomy. I'm an Obama supporter, I'll be voting for Hilary and I'm still able to objectively have issues with his foreign policy. Perhaps Trump's followers don't feel they can be critical of things he says or does while still supporting him, but we're not all like that.

I've been critical of the guy from day one. I don't defend it. I just don't care.

Most people admit Trumps a dick, but if that what it takes to get through to people who seem to be blind, they'll allow it. I don't get why this is so surprising to people. When we've all basically created Trump. And no one else with similar stances has been able to make it as far, so there's something to be said for his effectiveness, whether or not you like it.

My primary concerns in Presidential elections are foreign policy and economics. IMO they should be the most important issues to everyone right now but they don't appear to be. I have a hard time believing anyone that would vote for Hillary could have these issues as top priority.

If the guy I agree with is a douche, but he's the only douche that's saying anything remotely realistic in a doucheyway than at this point oh well. A lot of the most helpful and honest people I know are similarly blunt/douchey. But it doesn't take away from their power to help people and get things done. Maybe it's the New York thing that has something to do with the Trump style and approach...since it's where a lot of people are thicker skinned and less easily riled up over trivial nonsense.

 

[Puffin]

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Well, a little good news. My brother, who's upper middle class, educated and normally a Republican, was all-in for Trump until that bad week Trump had after the democrat's convention.

Fun thing about this election. You can't examine either one of them closely without recoiling in disgust.

 

[LuckySmiles]

It's page 23 Are we ready to talk about things like candidate tax plans yet? or just accepting nothing will change and the world is ending...

Trumps business tax cut to 15% seems impossible, but would be applicable to small business owners, freelancers, independent contractors (*caugh* camgirls* caugh*)

I see less about Hillary's but I've seen some vague notions about a tax "break" for small businesses/contractors with 1-5 employees. Also that she will "make it easier" for these people to do their taxes. Don't know what that means.

Sounds shady though doesn't it? Like just let me have some extra dough myself for my own accountants Hill. I don't need your "help"...

But of course who knows if either of these things would happen.

 

[Admiralfoot]

I see less about Hillary's but I've seen some vague notions about a tax "break" for small businesses/contractors with 1-5 employees. Also that she will "make it easier" for these people to do their taxes. Don't know what that means.

Hillary's plan sounds like it will raise taxes on corporations and charge them an "exit" tax if they want to leave the country. Somehow she believes raising taxes will create more jobs. Really? Basically will be the same as Obama's plan...Another economic disaster.

 

[n_i_c_u]

A candidate unchecked by their own supporters will run over us all.

This is one of the best statements I have ever read about politics and politicians.

It would be sooo cool if each party and their constituents really challenged their own candidate. I see it more from the Republicans this year--they are confused as to what is going on and there are Republicans (politicians and supporters) who are just abandoning ship. The Democratic party had a thing when it was Obama and Clinton when they were facing each other, but it seems pretty free and clear for them now (since Bernie gave up for whatever reason). Which is kind of sad. The throwing stones at the other party is tiresome.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

...Republicans this year--they are confused as to what is going on and there are Republicans (politicians and supporters) who are just abandoning ship.

They really shouldn't be surprised. They have been encouraging this shit for a long time now. It's about time it bites them in the ass, and bites them hard.

 

[n_i_c_u]

They have been encouraging this shit for a long time now. It's about time it bites them in the ass, and bites them hard.

Yeah.

At least they are looking at their candidate and saying: You Suck! That is kind of cool.

I don't know where trump stands on this since it is a long time ago (or if he signed a pledge--and what is up with that, how many pledges are these people signing?):