When Does NEVER End? by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

When Does NEVER End?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, September 26, 2016 19:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2810
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 1, 2016 7:46 PM

I am asking to hear from all of you who truly were Never Hilliary or Never Trump, or both.

When will NEVER end?
Pundits seem to think NEVER is not a permanent term, like politics is 007.
Many Trump supporters seem to think that Never Trumpers will suddenly support the very same Trump they pledged to Never support.
Many Hilliary supporters also seem to think that Never Hilliaryians will suddenly support the Hildebeast for something other than Prison 2016.

I don't understand the battle plan for either contingent.

For us, which of you were either a Never Trump and/or a Never Hilliary, and has Never elapsed for you, allowing you to now support who you previously despised? Or which of you remain a Neverer?

For those of you who were never in one of the Never camps, can you make sense of the strategy of assuming Neverers will capitulate? The Bernie and Cruz supporters seem to be the most strong-willed and principled groups of the election season, and would appear to be the least likely to cave.

Me, personally? I was a Never Trump and Never Hilliary, and still am. If Never passes, it will not be before December for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 7:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I don't understand the battle plan for either contingent."

I'm not pro-anybody, but I am 'never' Hillary.

I'm hoping the pro-Hillary people will try to pressure her campaign into better - AND more popular! - positions.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I don't understand the battle plan for either contingent."

I'm not pro-anybody, but I am 'never' Hillary.

I'm hoping the pro-Hillary people will try to pressure her campaign into better - AND more popular! - positions.

Do you envision a way for that to happen? She seems quite the stick in the mud.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:56 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The only way I can imagine it happening is if she's faced with a potential loss. At that point she may start looking for alternative positions to espouse. And at that point she may start paying attention to her advisors who are paying attention to where those votes are leaking away ... if her friends are telling her to do differently, facing potential loss, she might listen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 4:44 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Truth be told, I want Trump to win!

Yes, then you will see some shit! This country will be run into the ground in a proper manner, guns blazing, motor revving, a bottle of booze in one hand and the Hammer & Sickle in the other - like a Bat Out of Hell!!!

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road!!!

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 5:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yep, not sure who to vote for but "never Hillary" here, too. And "never" means .... never. There is NOTHING Hillary can do that would sway me to vote for her. This nation desperately needs someone other than Hillary to win, and I don't care if it's an orangutan with an orange toupee.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 12:53 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Fuck really? Scary times ahead

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1:46 PM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, not sure who to vote for but "never Hillary" here, too. And "never" means .... never. There is NOTHING Hillary can do that would sway me to vote for her. This nation desperately needs someone other than Hillary to win, and I don't care if it's an orangutan with an orange toupee.

Of course, you are a Russia troll and she will be much tougher for Putin to handle. This has been well established so no surprise here. I do see though that supporting Trump has become a problem for you. And, you do not have the courage to back up your convictions.

When does it end? November....

____________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 5:12 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, not sure who to vote for but "never Hillary" here, too. And "never" means .... never. There is NOTHING Hillary can do that would sway me to vote for her. This nation desperately needs someone other than Hillary to win, and I don't care if it's an orangutan with an orange toupee.

Don't forget Gary Johnson, Sig. Are you Pro-Pot, and/or Pro-Balanced Budget - then he's your man.
Quote:

Of course, you are a Russia troll and she will be much tougher for Putin to handle.

Here we have a logic failure. With Putin already owning all of her emails and other blackmailable material, Hildebeast will be the easiest for him to control. That is, if she ever bothered to defy Obamination and act AGAINST Putin or FOR America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 5:14 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fuck really? Scary times ahead

Translation to English, please?
I'll assume this is translating from Australian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, what choices do we have?

The "reasonable" "experienced" candidate who has promoted every USA-destablization effort in the world, since 1992? Who loves banks and free trade and globalization? Who thinks that she can "win" a nuclear war with Russia, when Russia has CLEARLY said that if we mess with them it won't be like the last world war, when the USA got to comfortably sit it out while the rest of the world got blown to smithereens, that THIS time the USA will be THE target? You mean THAT candidate? The one who is bound and determined to -literally- take over the world?

Or the crazy-guy with the candy-floss hair who says whatever pops into his head at that instant? Who can't keep his mind on something for more than 5 seconds? The one that we DON'T know what will happen next?

Yanno, people may be ... habituated? ... accommodated? ... inured? ... acclimatized ... to the direction that the USA deep state has been going on for quite some time now, but it's a direction that's likely fatal, especially since Hillary and her backers can't seem to read the warning signs. Given all that, between the two candidates I'd choose an uncertain future over a certain one.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 1:21 PM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, what choices do we have?

The "reasonable" "experienced" candidate who has promoted every USA-destablization effort in the world, since 1992? Who loves banks and free trade and globalization? Who thinks that she can "win" a nuclear war with Russia, when Russia has CLEARLY said that if we mess with them it won't be like the last world war, when the USA got to comfortably sit it out while the rest of the world got blown to smithereens, that THIS time the USA will be THE target? You mean THAT candidate? The one who is bound and determined to -literally- take over the world?

Or the crazy-guy with the candy-floss hair who says whatever pops into his head at that instant? Who can't keep his mind on something for more than 5 seconds? The one that we DON'T know what will happen next?

Yanno, people may be ... habituated? ... accommodated? ... inured? ... acclimatized ... to the direction that the USA deep state has been going on for quite some time now, but it's a direction that's likely fatal, especially since Hillary and her backers can't seem to read the warning signs. Given all that, between the two candidates I'd choose an uncertain future over a certain one.

____________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2016 3:46 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, what choices do we have?

The "reasonable" "experienced" candidate who has promoted every USA-destablization effort in the world, since 1992? blahblah blah blah blahblah...

That is no choice
Quote:

Or the crazy-guy with the candy-floss hair who says whatever pops into his head at that instant? Who can't keep his mind on something for more than 5 seconds? The one that we DON'T know what will happen next?
That is equally no choice

Quote:

Now that you have campaigned for New York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2, put on your thinking cap and try this:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60512

And this:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60572

Otherwise you'll be throwing your vote away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 26, 2016 5:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

When the majority of Americans are anti-Hilliary and another majority are anit-Trump, the winner needs to convert the most NEVERs. So this means those with the most principled stand will not move.

The cynical answer to this question: liberals will cave, canservatives will stand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 26, 2016 7:15 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When the majority of Americans are anti-Hilliary and another majority are anit-Trump, the winner needs to convert the most NEVERs. So this means those with the most principled stand will not move.

The cynical answer to this question:

I, a true cynic, will give you the real answer about what happens when voters can't make up their little minds between Hillary, Trump, or what's his name, the Libertarian:

From actual experience with Americans at the polls, the Founding Fathers did not have respect for the wisdom of voters. To compensate for voters being ignoramuses and braying jackasses with strong, yet factually unsupported, opinions, the electoral college system as designed was expected to rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress. Some scholars have described the Electoral College as being intended to nominate candidates from which the Congress would then select a president and vice president. – see WHAT ARE THEY ALL DOING, ANYWAY? an historical analysis of the Electoral College
www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html

The precise mechanics of what happens when nobody wins the Electoral College is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Modern
_mechanics

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrp
romo#now

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2016 5:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fuck really? Scary times ahead

Translation to English, please?
I'll assume this is translating from Australian.

Translation: Fuck really? Scary times ahead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:16 AM

REAVERFAN

The most disappointing politics of my time. This country is on a one-way trip to death.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When the majority of Americans are anti-Hilliary and another majority are anit-Trump, the winner needs to convert the most NEVERs. So this means those with the most principled stand will not move.

The cynical answer to this question: liberals will cave, conservatives will stand.

I had run out of time, and didn't elaborate on this as I had intended.

For one of the New York Liberals to win, they need to convert their NEVERs into voters.
In theory, the NEVERs are trying to stand for principles. Those who are the most principled will remain NEVER. Those who are the least principled, or unprincipled, will be the easiest to cave, capitulate, co-opt, rationalize, or "convince" to switch to the viewpoint they oppose as a NEVER.

So, the candidate with the principled Party members (Republicans who are NEVER Trump, or Democrats who are NEVER Hilliary) will lose, and the candidate with the least principled Party members had the best chance of winning.

That's why my cynical (and biased) version has Hilliary getting the advantage because the Repubicans are principled, and the Democrats wouldn't know a principle from a principal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 5, 2016 8:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Donald Trump repeatedly asked an unnamed foreign policy expert why the U.S. couldn’t use its nuclear weapons stockpile during a national security briefing earlier this year, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough said Wednesday.

How would "Morning Joe" even know what Trump said? Was he there?

This is just as much bullshit as "The Secret Service talked to Trump about his second amendment comment."

Why do you lie so much?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 5, 2016 11:53 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

How would "Morning Joe" even know what Trump said? Was he there?

This is just as much bullshit as "The Secret Service talked to Trump about his second amendment comment."

Why do you lie so much?

You talk like my Father. I repeat something from a textbook and he says, "Were you there?" It just so happens that many people were there when Trump ran his mouth. There are videos to go with this, too, but why waste more thousands of megabytes since you will argue Trump didn't say what he said and didn't mean what he meant. Just go with the transcripts:

Trump said he might use nuclear weapons and questioned why we would make them if we wouldn’t use them

MATTHEWS: Well, why would you — why wouldn’t you just say, “I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don’t talk about use of nuclear weapons”?

TRUMP: The question was asked — we were talking about NATO — which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dis —

MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn't have talked about.

TRUMP: I don’t think I — well, someday, maybe.

MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?

TRUMP: Of course. If somebody —

MATTHEWS: Where would we drop — where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain.

Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?

…

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

[MSNBC, March 30, 2016]

Trump said he was open to nuking Europe because it’s a “big place”

TRUMP: Well, I don’t want to take cards off the table. I would never do that. The last person to press that button would be me. Hey, I’m the one that didn’t want to go into Iraq from the beginning. The last person that wants to play the nuclear card believe me is me. But you can never take cards off the table either from a moral stand — from any standpoint and certainly from a negotiating standpoint.

BOLLING: Donald, I understand they are not taking the cards off the table for ISIS or Islamic terror. But when Chris expanded to Europe, what about that?

TRUMP: Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it.

[Fox News, 3/31/16]

Trump said that “you want to be unpredictable” with nuclear weapons

DICKERSON: They talk about the presidency and who has the finger on the button. The United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. When should it?

TRUMP: Well, it is an absolute last stance. And, you know, I use the word unpredictable. You want to be unpredictable.

And somebody recently said — I made a great business deal. And the person on the other side was interviewed by a newspaper. And how did Trump do this? And they said, he`s so unpredictable. And I didn't know if he meant it positively or negative. It turned out he meant it positively.

[CBS, 1/3/16]

Trump reiterated that it was important to be “unpredictable” with nuclear weapons

TRUMP: But I have to say this, there are…

HALPERIN: You’d probably be the last to use nuclear weapons…

TRUMP: Nuclear…

HALPERIN: — against ISIS?

TRUMP: — nuclear.

HALPERIN: But you’re — so you would — you would rule in the possibility of using, right, nuclear weapons against ISIS?

TRUMP: Well, I’m never going to rule anything out.

HALPERIN: Right.

TRUMP: And I wouldn’t want to say — even if I felt it wasn’t going — — I wouldn’t want to tell you that…

HALPERIN: Right.

TRUMP: — because, at a minimum, I want them to think maybe we would use it, OK?

HALPERIN: Right.

TRUMP: It’s the worst thing when we do these interviews, we — with everybody, not me…

HALPERIN: Yes.

TRUMP: — and you ask a question like that and everybody comes clean and they’re so honest.
You know, we need unpredictability. The enemy, we have enemies. ISIS is a enemy. And it’s an enemy not wearing uniforms, so we don’t even know who the enemy is. You know, in the old days we’d have Japan or we’d have Germany or we’d have — they would have soldiers.

HALPERIN: Right.

TRUMP: They would be dressed, we’d be dressed, we’d know who we were fighting.

HALPERIN: Right.

TRUMP: You’d have — it was called a war.

We don’t know who these people are. The fact is, we need unpredictability. And when you ask a question like that, it’s a very — it’s a very sad thing to have to answer it, because the enemy is watching and I have a very good chance of winning and I frankly don’t want the enemy to know how I’m thinking.

[Bloomberg, 3/23/16]

Trump said he wasn’t that worried about more countries getting nukes since “it’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them”

WALLACE: You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?

TRUMP: In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes.

WALLACE: Understood.

TRUMP: It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.

[Fox News, 4/3/16]

Trump had no idea what the “nuclear triad” was

HEWITT: Mr. Trump…

… Dr. Carson just referenced the single most important job of the president, the command, the control and the care of our nuclear forces. And he mentioned the triad. The B-52s are older than I am. The missiles are old. The submarines are aging out. It’s an executive order. It’s a commander-in-chief decision.
What’s your priority among our nuclear triad?

TRUMP: Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible; who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important. And one of the things that I’m frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you’re going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it. I called it very strongly. And it was very important.

But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ball game. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out — if we didn’t have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can’t just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn’t care. It was hand-to-hand combat.

The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming, which is inconceivable, this is what he’s saying. The biggest problem we have is nuclear — nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon.

That’s in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.

HEWITT: Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Senator Rubio after that and ask him.

TRUMP: I think — I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.

[CNN, 12/15/15]

Trump started talking about nuclear weapons in Pakistan and made no sense at all
Trump said he’d be OK with a nuclear arms race in Asia

BLITZER: But — but you’re ready to let Japan and South Korea become nuclear powers?

TRUMP: I am prepared to — if they’re not going to take care of us properly, we cannot afford to be the military and the police for the world. We are, right now, the police for the entire world. We are policing the entire world.

You know, when people look at our military and they say, “Oh, wow, that’s fantastic,” they have many, many times — you know, we spend many times what any other country spends on the military. But it’s not really for us. We’re defending other countries.

So all I’m saying is this: they have to pay.

And you know what? I’m prepared to walk, and if they have to defend themselves against North Korea, where you have a maniac over there, in my opinion, if they don’t — if they don’t take care of us properly, if they don’t respect us enough to take care of us properly, then you know what’s going to have to happen, Wolf?

It’s very simple. They’re going to have to defend themselves.

[CNN, 5/4/16]

The time he said it didn’t matter if Saudi Arabia acquired nuclear weapons because “it’s going to happen anyway”

COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.

Here’s the thing, with Japan, they have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves.

COOPER: So if you said, Japan, yes, it’s fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?

TRUMP: Can I be honest with you? It’s going to happen, anyway. It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time. They’re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely. But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them.

Now, wouldn’t you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons? And they do have them. They absolutely have them. They can’t — they have no carrier system yet but they will very soon.

Wouldn’t you rather have Japan, perhaps, they’re over there, they’re very close, they’re very fearful of North Korea, and we’re supposed to protect.

[CNN, 3/29/16]
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicl
y-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.l2y65dcsq

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 5, 2016 6:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

It is CURRENT US POLICY to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons FIRST.

That's something that Hillary won't even talk about. If I had to guess why not, I'd say it's because she likes that policy and doesn't want to see it jeopardized by having it widely broadcast.

If Donald is talking about using nuclear weapons only in response, that's a healthy step toward sanity for US policy, and more sane than what I conclude would be Hillary's enthusiastic strike-first one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 6:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Donald Trump repeatedly asked an unnamed foreign policy expert why the U.S. couldn’t use its nuclear weapons stockpile during a national security briefing earlier this year, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough said Wednesday.- GSTRING'

How would "Morning Joe" even know what Trump said? Was he there?
This is just as much bullshit as "The Secret Service talked to Trump about his second amendment comment." Why do you lie so much? - SIGNY

You talk like my Father. I repeat something from a textbook and he says, "Were you there?" It just so happens that many people were there when Trump ran his mouth.= SECOND

SECOND, first of all, I wasn't addressing you, since you weren't the one who made that asinine post.

But secondly, you DID manage to make an asinine post of your own, so congrats!

I wasn't objecting to "many people" my specific objection was to "Morning Joe's" comment, which was an un-sourced as any totally made-up piece of go se propaganda. Instead of answering the question, you engaged in ad-hominem and deflection.

As far as what Trump SAID, I find it far less objectionable than Hillary's position.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as what Trump SAID, I find it far less objectionable than Hillary's position.

So you agree that Trump said what he said, and so you agree that Morning Joe (never watched) was accurate, and so you call the Truth asinine? Figures - that'd be you alright.

The gossip/ lie/ propaganda by "Morning Joe", which you so happily repeated, was that Trump asked this questions multiple times AT A SECURITY BRIEFING. So my question to you was: HOW WOULD "MORNING JOE" KNOW what was said AT A SECURITY BRIEFING?

Was he there?
No.

The only way that "Morning Joe" would RELIABLY know is that somebody who was there would have told him. Since he didn't reference a source, it seems nobody told him, he just made that up on his won.

But thanks for playing "Evade That Question!", G!

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 3:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, if we have them, why can’t we use them? That’s one of the reasons he just doesn’t have foreign policy experts around him. Three times, in an hour briefing, why can’t we use nuclear weapons."

So, was this a "national security briefing"? Was it done by someone from the State Department? From the CIA, DIA? Because if it was, I guarantee you that we would never hear about it, and neither would "Morning Joe".

Or was this advice that Trump asked for? Was this someone yanked from a think tank who claims to be "a foreign policy expert"? Someone that Scarborough claims is a "foreign policy expert" but who happens not to be one? Someone who decided on their own to give The Donald a piece of his "expertise"? Because if it WAS a casual or self-selected "expert", there would be no reason to keep this advisor's identity a secret.

I still think "Morning Joe" made this whole thing up.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

How would "Morning Joe" even know what Trump said? Was he there?

This is just as much bullshit as "The Secret Service talked to Trump about his second amendment comment."

Why do you lie so much?
You talk like my Father. I repeat something from a textbook and he says, "Were you there?"

So you are saying that you have never even learned anything from your father, after he set such an excellent and pointed example?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:13 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

So you are saying that you have never even learned anything from your father, after he set such an excellent and pointed example?

He can ask me more questions in a minute than I can answer in an hour. Also, if I tell him something that he prefers not to believe he'll do his "Were you there?" question. I saw Hamilton, the musical, which I checked against a history book and my Father disagreed with both the musical and the history book with a "Were you there?" I admit I was not in New York when Alexander Hamilton was alive, so I can't be an eyewitness to banking history. My Father has strong opinions about federal banking -- why it exists, what is its purpose -- and he feels no need to verify the truth or accuracy of his beliefs and opinions. This is what happens to old people.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2016 7:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Just because Ted Cruz has now endorsed Trump, does not mean that NEVER Trumpers will vote for their NEVER.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE