Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would this then also then mean that all the attacks on Obama are out of fear that he is such a strong opponent and that the GOP is scared to death of him? Because there have been attacks on him like a mad, mean dog. Wouldn't your assumption cut both ways?
It would if the attacks had been as prevalent (spelling) as those against 1st Palin, then Bachmann and now Trump. It is totally a different situation. Libs are only looking at or appear to be attacking the candidates that are a little different and possibly a little more of a threat. There will always be attacks on the opposite side, that is politics and life in general, but anyone who can think for him/herself should be able to figure out the difference.'
Although I have been supportive of Trump I just read something I find extremely disturbing. He donated to Harry Reid to defeat Sharron Angle.
Jay, where did you read this? I am certainly not questioning you but I would love to know where the statement came from so we could all track the soruce. \
Jay, where did you read this? I am certainly not questioning you but I would love to know where the statement came from so we could all track the soruce. \
Also I'd like you to read a topic I just posted that I found about Trump. Not good at all. Can you say hostile takeover?
It's a shame.He's the one guy who would run an aggressive, in your face campaign against Obama. He could defeat Obama. Yet he isn't a true conservative. There are other candidates who I agree with perfectly on ideology, yet they will be too meek and respectful towards Obama and/or they will let the media destroy them and not fight back.
It would if the attacks had been as prevalent (spelling) as those against 1st Palin, then Bachmann and now Trump. It is totally a different situation. Libs are only looking at or appear to be attacking the candidates that are a little different and possibly a little more of a threat. There will always be attacks on the opposite side, that is politics and life in general, but anyone who can think for him/herself should be able to figure out the difference.'
Nita
Palin, Bachmann and Trump Three examples of individuals that purposely stand up and make outrageous public statements and then are "unfairly" attacked for those statements.
The difference appears to be that it is OK to attack Obama but the GOP extremists are off limits. Even when they paint a bullseye on themselves and jump up and down and wave their arms. Now I understand.
Also I'd like you to read a topic I just posted that I found about Trump. Not good at all. Can you say hostile takeover?
The man's not always perfect, so what. We all fail. I wonder if Bill Clinton or Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama (or whoever the heck he is) ever did anything that was less than sterling? The Clintons committed many sordid deeds while crashing at the White House. (Vince Foster anyone?)
If this is true, it's certainly not one of Trump's finest moments in life, but I also recall more to this story about how his offer to this woman was very generous. Looking at the big picture, he's a decent man. He's also committed many altruistic acts that do not get covered in the press, I know because I've worked in NYC for many years and you hear things in the business community. I'm going to sit back and continue to listen to what this man has to say about the state of our country and what he believes has to be done to remedy it and why we are failing so miserably. Me and millions of others, I am certain. We'll keep nodding our heads in agreement.
No. He is a mediocre at best intellect, a blow hard, a womanizer, an embarrassment morally, and has such little regard for the intellectual capacity of the average primary voter that he says literally "laugh out loud" funny rhetoric in order to win them over.
Most of his "success" in life stems for his ten figure head start via his father; most things Donald has tried to accomplish on his own as a man have failed; to include his marriage. He is one of those guys who doesn't drink or do drugs yet has no sense of profound morality or purpose. Thus, he puts all his anger and angst into creating this imaginary disposition as a business conglomerate. In truth, most of his "original" ideas have ended in bankruptcy or shambles; his most successful venture has been television.
If you listen to his approach to solving the oil crisis, it's clear he assumes his audience has a room temperature iq, willing to accept any angry rhetoric, and unwilling to consider reality ("we'll just use our intellect/negotiation skills to makes deal with the Arabs! Oil crisis over!" lol...it's like something a ten year old would say..)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
