Kazudy

I v**ed for Trump mainly because I didn't want Hillary. Now I say 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years. Can I get an Amen?

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

I didn't support either one of you!!!!!!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

rumi: You're the one being the numnut! Go back to sleep and consider electronic shock therapy!

woodguru

The funny thing is, and it would make me feel better to hear more people admit it, is that most people on right wing sites h**ed the i***t, before he starting looking like he could win the primary. Most had one of the others that they supported early on.

The part where the mind of the right plays scary tricks is that now they believe they supported him from the start, and will support him beyond impeachment.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

It amazes me that the removal of safeguards does not bother them..

Some have said they lost homes to the banks..

They blamed President Obama and not the banks or the recession..

Now trump returns regulation to what caused their loss and not a word from them..

acknowledgeurma

A p***eful one had posted more than once on this thread (under different logins?), so rumitoid was not necessarily forgetful in responding twice. However, rumitoid should keep Poe's Law in mind when posting remarks as open to ambiguity as "Brilliant".

acknowledgeurma

Do you really think that these were good reasons to v**e for him?

Oh wait, my mistake, you probably didn't follow Slavoj Zizek's recommendation.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Woody, as a rule I always supported someone in the primary but we don't have P**********l primaries here in Kansas so I just held back this time. I wasn't a Trump supporter till he was nominated. I stopped being a Democrat when they nominated an obvious Socialist, McGovern, and swore to never v**e for one of those. One of two people was going to be elected so I just did what I had told myself since 2000 and that was v**e for anybody but Hillary. He was going to win if she didn't and I have been very satisfied with him since he was inaugurated.

I slept so good when I heard that he had won and she didn't. She did write her graduate paper on Alinsky, didn't she?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Hi Roy, Missed a couple of replies I intended due to the dreaded "old guy not felling good" blues..

but this is a bit..

from the prospect.org.... They will not let the link be copied.. darn..


onsider Carson’s inflammatory Lucifer comparison. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, written in 1971, opens with blurbs about three figures—Lucifer, Jewish religious leader Rabbi Hillel, and Thomas Paine. He described Lucifer as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”

It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Satanism, but as a comment about the long tradition in history of dissent and protest.
That’s the only mention of Lucifer in the entire book. It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Satanism, but as a comment about the long tradition in history of dissent and protest.

Carson took additional liberties with the t***h by identifying Alinsky as Clinton’s “role model.” Hilton Rodham—who was student body president at Wellesley, graduating in 1969—did indeed write her senior thesis about, and interviewed, the controversial activist. But she was actually quite critical of Alinsky’s views.

Summarizing her 92-page political science thesis, “‘There Is Only the Fight’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” The New York Times observed:

Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’ s central critique of government antipoverty programs—that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent’ and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system.

In 2003, while she was a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton discussed Alinsky in her memoir, Living History. Clinton “agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves,” she wrote. “But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

To many of you're somes were granted sub-prime loans by the cultural c*******t democrats; because democrats think everyone deserves a home! Homie just doesn't think so!!! There are now regulations in place to stop that buffoonery!

king hall Loc: Tucson,AZ.

What regulation has the President 'returned'

debeda

Bravo! Perfect

debeda

Amen!!

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

That's your worldly insufficient opinion.

Reasonable sound minded v**ers understand the reason for multiple debates. Unlike the democrats fixing the e******n against Bernie Sanders and only one candidate, the right had sixteen. What does that mean?

Every rational person has bias towards or against candidates, which is the reason for multiple debates, offering v**ers time to change their minds from one candidate to another determined by performance outcomes.
So yes as the debates progressed, v**ers turned to Trump based solely on performance, promises, and abilities to project his ability to be a STRONG leader of conservative values.
Ted Cruz has a high percentage of v**ers until the very end, or near the end of the campaign trail, when he swore not to support Trump if he won. That unpatriotic statement of a leader not supporting the sitting president turned off a lot of his base, which turned to Trump.

What bothers you about Trump is not a list a false allegations, but that he is dismantling the lefts policies and agendas, even when the party publicly announced to resist 100%. Yep, that's the i***t left lawmakers, resist, resist, resist.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

LOL....Now you have all democrats running banks???

do a check, nearly all bankers are deep republicans.. they are the back bone of the GOP..

Regulations??? You better do a check of the changes trump made to free up his banker buddies..

He removed all the regulations Obama and congress put in place to protect consumers.. that would be most of us on OPP.