PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on May 20, 2016, 01:07:14 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-endorse-donald-trump-president/story?id=39253893
Now is the time to unite. If your preferred candidate dropped out of the race, it's time to get over it," Cox said earlier in his remarks
-
well, for sure and for certain, the NRA wouldn't endorse the doormat, not with all the bullfeces and lies the doormat has been spouting.
-
well, for sure and for certain, the NRA wouldn't endorse the doormat, not with all the bullfeces and lies the doormat has been spouting.
Exactly. There was no way they were going to endorse Hillary. Endorsing Trump was bound to happen so I'm not surprised by this. Let's hope Trump sticks to what his website says he believes regarding the 2nd Amendment.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-endorse-donald-trump-president/story?id=39253893
I'm a life NRA member. I feel sad for the NRA. They desperately try to pick the lesser of two miserable assholes in every election. We haven't had a true pro 2nd Amendment president since... well... ever that I know of. Probably not since Teddy Roosevelt. I'm sorry, but I'm not voting for Trump in some desperate hope that he will save the 2nd Amendment.
He won't.
There is so much else wrong with the guy that this time around, you really need to be more than just a single issue voter.
-
I'm a life NRA member. I feel sad for the NRA. They desperately try to pick the lesser of two miserable assholes in every election. We haven't had a true pro 2nd Amendment president since... well... ever that I know of. Probably not since Teddy Roosevelt. I'm sorry, but I'm not voting for Trump in some desperate hope that he will save the 2nd Amendment.
He won't.
There is so much else wrong with the guy that this time around, you really need to be more than just a single issue voter.
I'm with you in this Dave. Life member here as well.
What I don't understand is why now? I went to the Annual Meeting in Indy two years ago. It's a big deal, but when Mitch McConnell got up to speak at the NRA-ILA meeting, the reception was very cool with some boos. The best was Mark Levin and Milwaukee Sheriff David Clark.
They could have dragged this out, and taken a few months to teach Trump about the Second Amendment (I guarantee you he knows very little about it) and tried to extract some strong pro-gun, pro-freedom speeches out of him before endorsing.
-
I'm with you in this Dave. Life member here as well.
What I don't understand is why now?
also a life member here.
Why now? perhaps it was a strategy to remove the endorsement as recent news that the lying democrat scum (yes, redundant) would try to exploit.
Did anyone imagine the NRA endorsing the doormat?
-
Why now? perhaps it was a strategy to remove the endorsement as recent news that the lying democrat scum (yes, redundant) would try to exploit.
Why do people say Clinton is a liar but not Trump? Trump lies constantly, he has no compunction about lying about his opponents, about himself, or anything else. He's at least as much of a liar as Hillary.
-
Why do people say Clinton is a liar but not Trump? Trump lies constantly, he has no compunction about lying about his opponents, about himself, or anything else. He's at least as much of a liar as Hillary.
Perhaps, but he hasn't broken any federal laws or endangered national security.
-
Perhaps, but he hasn't broken any federal laws or endangered national security.
Well, to this point, nobody has entrusted him with anything impacting national security.
-
Well, to this point, nobody has entrusted him with anything impacting national security.
I think it's more that he hasn't been in a position that warranted being entrusted with information until now. Isn't he now receiving daily intelligence briefings?
-
Why do people say Clinton is a liar but not Trump? Trump lies constantly, he has no compunction about lying about his opponents, about himself, or anything else. He's at least as much of a liar as Hillary.
prove it
-
prove it
Click to the left of the "False" bar:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)
-
Click to the left of the "False" bar:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)
<insert deflection about Politifact>
Just wanted to get that out of the way.
-
The guy lied about his own name to brag about himself to a reporter, admitted it under oath, then when asked about it on the campaign, lied about ever doing it...
-
The guy lied about his own name to brag about himself to a reporter, admitted it under oath, then when asked about it on the campaign, lied about ever doing it...
Yes, but Hillary.
-
There is so much else wrong with the guy that this time around, you really need to be more than just a single issue voter.
I AM a one issue voter as if the candidates are against the 2A like Hillary, Bernie and the entire Democrat Party that means that is the lynch pin to take our other rights. Loretta Lynch, Obama et al already want to take our 1A rights. If we don't have the means to defend ourselves they can just keep doing this crap.
If you guys sit home, and don't vote for Trump, flaws and all, you are voting for Hillary.
-
If you guys sit home, and don't vote for Trump, flaws and all, you are voting for Hillary.
technically, it's only a half a vote for anyone else.
-
I AM a one issue voter as if the candidates are against the 2A like Hillary, Bernie and the entire Democrat Party that means that is the lynch pin to take our other rights. Loretta Lynch, Obama et al already want to take our 1A rights. If we don't have the means to defend ourselves they can just keep doing this crap.
If you guys sit home, and don't vote for Trump, flaws and all, you are voting for Hillary.
A) Trump has stated he wants your 1A rights (wants public officials to be able to sue you for saying mean things about them) and 2A rights ("assault weapons ban")
B) Someone staying home and not voting for Hillary is just as much a vote for Trump as the other way around.
-
If you guys sit home, and don't vote for Trump, flaws and all, you are voting for Hillary.
This has been addressed numerous times. Continuing to say it doesn't make it any more true.
-
This has been addressed numerous times. Continuing to say it doesn't make it any more true.
Continuing to deny it doesn't make it false.
Just saying......
-
Continuing to deny it doesn't make it false.
Just saying......
It actually does for all of the reasons mentioned in previous threads. The most basic reason is that if I do not pull the lever for Hillary then I did not in fact vote for her.
Regardless, we know Hillary wants to ban guns and Trump now says he doesn't want to. Perhaps he has truly had a change of opinion on it (I've heard his sons are avid gun shooters and may have helped sway him) or perhaps he realizes he can't gain a lot of Republican support by being anti-gun (read: none). I hope he sticks to it.
-
Continuing to deny it doesn't make it false.
Just saying......
It really is literally tautologically true...
If you don't vote for anyone, you haven't voted for anyone.
To insist otherwise really comes across as retarded.
Really.
-
It really is literally tautologically true...
If you don't vote for anyone, you haven't voted for anyone.
To insist otherwise really comes across as retarded.
Really.
It is retarded to deny that if you do NOT vote for one side, you are not giving the other side an advantage. Democrats that do not vote for Hillary are giving an advantage to Trump and vice-versa.
The only point of argument is that if you don't mind if the other side wins, then not voting is not giving either side an advantage.
But for Republicans (conservatives) to claim that failing to vote for the Republican is not giving the Democrat an advantage is asinine. Those of you that do not vote for Trump and claim that it is not giving an advantage to Hillary are merely trying to rationalize your failure to vote.
-
It really is literally tautologically true...
If you don't vote for anyone, you haven't voted for anyone.
To insist otherwise really comes across as retarded.
Really.
Here is the reality of this years presidential election. There will be two candidates, Trump and Clinton. For third party there will be the usual libertarian, Green Party, etc that will garnish a very small percentage of the vote.
The reality is the next president will be either a republican or a democrat, period. If a registered democrat voter decides to sit out the election, it hurts the democrat candidate. If a registered republican voter decides to sit out the election it hurts the republican candidate.
Back in 2000 had a few hundred registered republican voters in Florida had stayed home instead of voting and supporting GWB we would have had a President Gore. Again, a very simple concept.
Anyone who thinks it would be OK to have 4 years of Clinton as President needs their fucking head examined. The very thought of Hillary nominating 4 to 5 SC justices is repulsive.
-
It really is literally tautologically true...
If you don't vote for anyone, you haven't voted for anyone.
To insist otherwise really comes across as retarded.
Really.
You're using big words with Trumpsters.
-
Here is the reality of this years presidential election. There will be two candidates, Trump and Clinton. For third party there will be the usual libertarian, Green Party, etc that will garnish a very small percentage of the vote.
The reality is the next president will be either a republican or a democrat, period. If a registered democrat voter decides to sit out the election, it hurts the democrat candidate. If a registered republican voter decides to sit out the election it hurts the republican candidate.
Back in 2000 had a few hundred registered republican voters in Florida had stayed home instead of voting and supporting GWB we would have had a President Gore. Again, a very simple concept.
Anyone who thinks it would be OK to have 4 years of Clinton as President needs their fucking head examined. The very thought of Hillary nominating 4 to 5 SC justices is repulsive.
Each and every election cycle there has always been a decision that boils down to a Republican or Democrat. This hasn't changed (except maybe the 1992 election) for decades. You keep trying to paint this as a "Trump vs. Hillary" and that's all there is and all there can be type election when that's not the case. Nobody disputes the fact that it will be either Trump or Hillary as the next president barring some strange occurrence. Nobody disputes that Hillary would be a terrible president.
What the anti-Trump crowd is saying is that there is little evidence to suggest that Trump would be much better than Hillary or that his policy positions are any better. He's already stated that he wants to limit the 1st Amendment and he's been on record as being anti-second Amendment as recently as 2012. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I should vote for Trump with a valid reason other than "because Hillary".
-
If you guys sit home, and don't vote for Trump, flaws and all, you are voting for Hillary.
Sorry, I won't be sitting home and I will vote, it just won't be for Trump, Clinton or Sanders. I also have to say that I won't be guilt tripped into voting for a repulsive candidate. I don't want that on my personal record.
Three points-
- Donald Trump says he doesn't need my vote. He'll win without me. You guys that support him believe everything else that he says, why not this?
- I live in California. It is a forgone conclusion that Clinton will take California. I vote Republican every time and every time it's pissing in the wind. I would much rather be able to say that I did not vote for Trump in the future than to say I voted for Trump and Clinton won the state anyhow.
- If the Republicans lose this time, it is not my fault because I didn't vote for Trump, it is squarely the fault of the boneheads that wanted to "blow shit up" and made Trump the front runner and ultimately the nominee. Had they put up an even marginal candidate I would have gone along. Trump is not marginal, he is absurd.
Don't worry, I have a feeling Trump will win without my support. The country seems to have lost it's collective mind and we're spinning this way and that. The way I see it, more than half the Republicans want Trump, about half the Democrats want Sanders and very few really want Clinton. In the end, a fair amount of Sanders supporters will fall in with Clinton just to stop Trump, but some won't. Some of the "Never Trump" republicans will cave to the guilt/peer pressure and vote Trump. The independents will wall whichever way they lean.
Net result is- Trump wins by a small margin.
-
Back in 2000 had a few hundred registered republican voters in Florida had stayed home instead of voting and supporting GWB we would have had a President Gore. Again, a very simple concept.
Does that mean we wouldn't have invaded Iraq? Can I still change my vote and get a do over?
-
All those Republican voters that stayed home in 2012 weren't the reason Obama was re-elected. ::)
-
BTW, Trump went over 1237 today, that should really piss off the Cruzers. Their guy just didn't have what it took to attract enough votes. :o
-
BTW, Trump went over 1237 today, that should really piss off the Cruzers. Their guy just didn't have what it took to attract enough votes. :o
It doesn't piss me off, it's just how the system works. Trump won because he ran a better campaign, good for him. Now it's up to him to convince me I should vote for him.
-
It doesn't piss me off, it's just how the system works. Trump won because he ran a better campaign, good for him. Now it's up to him to convince me I should vote for him.
And that's what is truly sad. The "better campaign" amounted to loud mouth bar room bullshit and media whoring. No substance, no promises, no plans, little truth, just blah, blah, blah proposals and a lifetime of material for Comedy Central.
We're doomed.
-
BTW, Trump went over 1237 today, that should really piss off the Cruzers. Their guy just didn't have what it took to attract enough votes. :o
Are you channeling your inner lucifer tonight?
-
Nobody disputes the fact that it will be either Trump or Hillary as the next president barring some strange occurrence. Nobody disputes that Hillary would be a terrible president.
In an election cycle where all the old paradigms have fallen, why should we assume that the D v. R as the only choices one will stand?
-
In an election cycle where all the old paradigms have fallen, why should we assume that the D v. R as the only choices one will stand?
I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. Trump may be an outlier but he's still the Reoublican nominee. If something changes during the general election campaign I'll revisit this.
-
And that's what is truly sad. The "better campaign" amounted to loud mouth bar room bullshit and media whoring. No substance, no promises, no plans, little truth, just blah, blah, blah proposals and a lifetime of material for Comedy Central.
We're doomed.
You have perfectly described the Obama, Clinton, and Sanders campaigns to a T
-
You have perfectly described the Obama, Clinton, and Sanders campaigns to a T
Add in a Trump and you have a perfectly compatible foursome.
-
Democrats = guaranteed loss of freedoms, and liberties, higher taxes, more control, more regulations. Loss of 2A, and 1A at least.
Trump = ????? But at least he is saying some of the right things
-
Democrats = guaranteed loss of freedoms, and liberties, higher taxes, more control, more regulations. Loss of 2A, and 1A at least.
Trump = ????? But at least he is saying some of the right things
In the field of risk avoidance, you consider the probability of a situation in relation to the severity of that situation.
So take a situation:
Appointing liberal supreme court justices?
Attacking the 2nd A (and the 1st andothers)?
Raising taxes?
Appointing liberal heads of the various agencies (IRS, EPA, DOJ . ..)
or any other position that is important to you.
What are the odds that Hillary will do the wrong thing? (I submit 100%)
What are the odds that Trump will do the wrong thing? (I submit, Less than 100%).
Where is the confusion coming from? I think it is all just emotional, but I always thought that was a liberal trait.
#NeverHillary ;D ;D ;D
-
In the field of risk avoidance, you consider the probability of a situation in relation to the severity of that situation.
So take a situation:
Appointing liberal supreme court justices?
Attacking the 2nd A (and the 1st andothers)?
Raising taxes?
Appointing liberal heads of the various agencies (IRS, EPA, DOJ . ..)
or any other position that is important to you.
What are the odds that Hillary will do the wrong thing? (I submit 100%)
What are the odds that Trump will do the wrong thing? (I submit, Less than 100%).
Where is the confusion coming from? I think it is all just emotional, but I always thought that was a liberal trait.
#NeverHillary ;D ;D ;D
Exactly, and well said.
-
In the field of risk avoidance, you consider the probability of a situation in relation to the severity of that situation.
So take a situation:
Appointing liberal supreme court justices?
Attacking the 2nd A (and the 1st andothers)?
Raising taxes?
Appointing liberal heads of the various agencies (IRS, EPA, DOJ . ..)
or any other position that is important to you.
What are the odds that Hillary will do the wrong thing? (I submit 100%)
What are the odds that Trump will do the wrong thing? (I submit, Less than 100%).
Where is the confusion coming from? I think it is all just emotional, but I always thought that was a liberal trait.
#NeverHillary ;D ;D ;D
Agree.
If you look back at interview videos fro 25 years ago Trump is amazingly consistent with his "platform" today.