OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[The Big Dunn]

Correct.



You guessed wrong.

As I say, dont guess. And play mind reader either.

Simply ask me and I'll answer.



You drew the wrong conclusion, obviously. Maybe get a refund on that class.

Watch those insults now.

As I said, I've discovered filtering noise and nonsense makes the experience here much more pleasurable.

You obviously like engaging me, so don't lose that right by being childish.

LMFAO! Unbelievable. Why else would you be happy with the prospect of 4 SC judges unless you thought it would benefit you?

[1bad65]

LMFAO! Unbelievable. Why else would you be happy with the prospect of 4 SC judges unless you thought it would benefit you?

Simple.

Trump said he's putting up Justices who follow the Constitution.

He didn't promise to put Justices on the bench to benefit certain people/groups.

When the Constitution is followed, I'm happy.

See, just ask.

[Motorcity Cobra]

Gotcha games is when you get caught being a hypocrite.....ok

[The Big Dunn]

About me is good enough.

As I said to Dunn, something draws you guys to me, as you keep coming back for more and more.

I'm fine using the ignore feature. If you don't mind losing the ability to engage me, keep acting childish.

Noise cancellation works wonders...

The volume of your posts illustrates the truth-It is impossible for you not to comment when someone points out a Trump mistake, gaffe or failure.

You covet attention and interaction from posters that didn't vote for Trump. Whenever anyone posts something negative, you attack that post and/or poster. Sometimes you do it aggressively, sometimes passive aggressively by responding without quoting the poster.

Please don't exaggerate that it is posters that didn't vote for or don't like Trump that go out of their way to attack you or seek your attention.

[The Big Dunn]

Simple.

Trump said he's putting up Justices who follow the Constitution.

He didn't promise to put Justices on the bench to benefit certain people/groups.

When the Constitution is followed, I'm happy.

See, just ask.

I have never heard him say anything other than he will appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Maybe he did say it and I missed it.

Of course a Republican filled supreme court will almost surely take a narrow view of federal powers and would continue to tilt the political playing field in favor of the Republican Party, most notably by allowing money to swamp elections and vote suppression by state legislatures.

Based on your posts, you would be happy with this. which is why I posted what I did.

edit: A very conservative Republican bloc would overturn roe v wade, same-sex marriage and The civil liberties of citizens would be severely diminished. The rights of workers will be seriously curtailed, and American business will act with fewer regulatory constraints.

All of these are things I believe you have said you wanted, which is why the smiling emoji was used.

[1bad65]

The volume of your posts illustrates the truth-It is impossible for you not to comment when someone points out a Trump mistake, gaffe or failure.

Dude, you suck at mind-reading. Stop.

You covet attention and interaction from posters that didn't vote for Trump. Whenever anyone posts something negative, you attack that post and/or poster. Sometimes you do it aggressively, sometimes passive aggressively by responding without quoting the poster.

All false.

I'm known, for better or worse, for not lobbing personal attacks and for using the Ignore function quite often.

That's not the way folks who want e-conflict conduct themselves.

Please don't exaggerate that it is posters that didn't vote for or don't like Trump that go out of their way to attack you or seek your attention.

Wrong again.

I'm only letting folks know how I roll, and giving them a chance to stay off my Ignore list.

Anyone here is free to put me on Ignore. Butler, The Tribe, and SafeSpace's alts all have, for whatever reasons.

[1bad65]

I have never heard him say anything other than he will appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Maybe he did say it and I missed it.

You don't pay attention too much, outside of D talking points and insults.

Of course a Republican filled supreme court will almost surely take a narrow view of federal powers and would continue to tilt the political playing field in favor of the Republican Party, most notably by allowing money to swamp elections and vote suppression by state legislatures.

There's a perfect example of talking points.

Hillary spent almost double what Trump did, but here you parrot the nonsense that money in politics favors Team R.

Demanding ID to vote isn't suppressing anyone's right to vote, unless one can for starters then concede that requiring ID to buy a firearm is suppressing people's 2nd Amendment rights.

You want to make that jump?

Based on your posts, you would be happy with this. which is why I posted what I did.

Ok Sylvia Browne.

edit: A very conservative Republican bloc would overturn roe v wade, same-sex marriage and The civil liberties of citizens would be severely diminished. The rights of workers will be seriously curtailed, and American business will act with fewer regulatory constraints.

All conjecture.

All of these are things I believe you have said you wanted, which is why the smiling emoji was used.

Wrong again.

So not only can you not read my mind, reading my posts seems to be impossible for you as well.

[The Big Dunn]

You don't pay attention too much, outside of D talking points and insults.



There's a perfect example of talking points.

Hillary spent almost double what Trump did, but here you parrot the nonsense that money in politics favors Team R.

Demanding ID to vote isn't suppressing anyone's right to vote, unless one can for starters then concede that requiring ID to buy a firearm is suppressing people's 2nd Amendment rights.

You want to make that jump?



Ok Sylvia Browne.



All conjecture.



Wrong again.

So not only can you not read my mind, reading my posts seems to be impossible for you as well.

These aren't D talking points, whatever those are. They are the values of the Federalist Society, a group Trump said he would clear all judicial nominations through when asked before the election.

I get you want to refute my points, but just calling them talking points wont cut it.

The more you post, the more it appears obvious that your support for and defense of Trump isn't rooted in ideology but something else.

[1bad65]

These aren't D talking points, whatever those are. They are the values of the Federalist Society, a group Trump said he would clear all judicial nominations through when asked before the election.

No, they were talking points.

Tell you what, try citing specifics, not the talking points.

Let's take this claim of yours, for example:

"The civil liberties of citizens would be severely diminished.'

How? In what ways?
Please, be specific.

The more you post, the more it appears obvious that your support for and defense of Trump isn't rooted in ideology but something else.

I agree with him politically in alot of ways, yes. So ideologically we are close in many ways.

That said, I'm on record saying his not being a lifer politician was a HUGE factor for me.

[BrometheusBob.]

WOW

Fox News Poll: Alabama Senate race all tied up

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...l-tied-up.html

The bettors on PI still figure Moore (R) as a 4-1 favorite over Jones (D), down from a 9-1 favorite earlier today