How to pressure the electoral college?
It seems there are two electors that will go 'faithless' on the 29th. Is there some way we can urge more to consider this path, assuming we don't especially want the pres elect in office?
From a government standpoint, who would we put pressure on as well, our senators, governors, congressmen?
I'm not adequately versed in the workings of our government, but it seems that pressure can be brought to bear all along the chain.
Tricky stuff, it seems to me from reading the excerpts from the Federalist papers, that the currents situation is precisely what the electoral college system was designed to guard against, it their clear duty to not make Trump president.
but, what about the backlash from the people who believe in him, thousands packing out stadiums chanting his slogans who feel disenfranchised by 'the elites' and wanted somebody from outside the system to 'drain the swamp' (regardless of what he is actually doing and appointing). To be patted on the head by some faceless 'college' and told 'no you got it wrong' and put Hillary in, rigged system much?
Again the lesser of two evils, let Trump go ahead and prove how incapable he is, to the ruin of the country, or change the result to the destruction of faith in democracy and government to a great swath of the population.
I don't really know who the electoral college is, and so how to pressure them, kidnap their dogs?
Yeah this Democracy turned into a bad idea because the lower classes aren't voting the way we want.
Can we somehow overturn their votes?
Maybe we should change our entire system of government to do it, and guarantee that only we elites can vote.
(By "elites" of course I mean me and thee. But as always, I'm not so sure about thee.)
Both Hillary and Trump are tools of distraction and manipulation. Bernie's message was allowed to be heard only, just like Howard Dean's in 2004. Now everything going on is just the process used to render that message impotent.
That's my conspiracy theory, anyway.
I think that, in the end, Trump will have done less damage than Hillary would have.
But, what do I know? I'm low class and easily manipulated.
I believe that Hillary would have been as productive as Obama was allowed to be. Trump is going to go for it all...pro-money makers at the expense of all classes except the money makers. We will have to see if its a harm or benefit to you and me. Did Reagans trickle down do much for you?
Did Reagans trickle down do much for you?
No, but his war on drugs sure did...:right:
I'll just put this here in case we need it in the future. Not saying we will, mind you, just in case. :rolleyes:
Kleptocracy and kakistocracy explained
Kleptocracy is a government with corrupt rulers that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political power. Typically this system involves the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service...
The effects of a kleptocratic government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the welfare of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocratic governance typically ruins prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade...
Kakistocracy is a term meaning a state or country run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens... The word comes from the Greek words kakistos (worst) and kratos (rule), with a literal meaning of government by the worst people.
Maybe we should change our entire system of government to do it, and guarantee that only [the] elites can vote.
That wouldn't be a change, when it comes to the Electoral College. Removing the Electoral College would be the change.
Heck, if the Electoral College blocked Trump, there might be bipartisan support for eliminating it.
The EC doesn't have to give it to Hilary; they could elect anyone,at least it seems that way from reading what's his name's piece in the times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html
The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
[SIZE="4"]Concerns in Congress Rise Over Donald Trump’s ‘Militarizing’ His Cabinet[/SIZE]
There's nothing to be concerned about. It's just a precautionary measure in case Elector College Electors double-cross their voters and make Hillary President. The Donald will be ready with a military coup! :D
I think he'd look better in a military soft top.
Concerns in Congress Rise Over Donald Trump’s ‘Militarizing’ His Cabinet
No problem. Trump knows more than generals. Therefore they will only recommend what he wants them to recommend. That is what we voted for.
Yeh, remember how crazy republicans got when Obama had three Generals in his first cabinet?
me neither.
I'm more concerned with Goldman Sachs' continued ownership of economic policy. I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.
Donald Trump’s transition team wants the Energy Department to provide the names of any employees who have worked on President Barack Obama’s climate initiatives — a request that has current and former staffers fearing an oncoming “witch hunt.”
The president-elect’s team sought the information as part of a 74-point questionnaire that also asked for details about how DOE’s statistical arm, the Energy Information Administration, does the math on issues such as the cost-effectiveness of wind and solar power versus fossil fuels. POLITICO obtained the document Friday, after Trump’s advisers sent it to the department earlier in the week.
link I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.
Of course they were. Because they were not thinking. They voted for their emotions. What is evil yesterday is good today - when one is emotional. When one is an adult still thinking like a child, then what was known yesterday means little to that child today.
I'm more concerned with Goldman Sachs' continued ownership of economic policy. I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.
Yeah. It wasn't a case of low class, it was a case of ignorance.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an initative that would fix the problem without a constitutional ammendament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_CompactOf course, why obey the Constitution when you can just do an end run around it whenever you don't get what you want?
Peter Skurkiss has a good take on this.
Of course, why obey the Constitution when you can just do an end run around it whenever you don't get what you want?
This is actually kind of funny. Without context, this quote can be used to describe any number of things I've seen in recent years done by your team.
Pam, how can you support a party that has declared war on the LGBTQ community (among other groups)?
Yeh, remember how crazy republicans got when Obama had three Generals in his first cabinet?
me neither.
Two minutes in the penalty box for Tu Quoque Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]
An example would be
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
Drops gloves/ Guess you don't remember that either./circles foot3
I honestly wasn't paying attention; I didn't know there was going to be a test.
:)
Pam, how can you support a party that has declared war on the LGBTQ community (among other groups)?
I'd like to see that declaration in the record. Who voted for it? When was the vote?
There is no war on the LGBT community. They are simply not getting everything they demand, which is way more than they need.
Yes, I am part of that group, but I have been deemed a heretic for refusing to recognize more than two genders, refusing to use silly pronouns which do not exist in grammar (zie etc) and daring to use common sense when thinking for myself.
When I cast my vote for President, I voted for the person I thought was best to lead the entire country in many topics, not just one or two. I feel that it would have been irresponsible to vote based on "feelings" or against anyone (impossible to vote against a person, only a ballot question).
I have very few LGBT friends these days.
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.
Sort of, unless you're not arguing the basic logic of the argument, but rather the double standard itself. It's not Peter saying that animal products are morally wrong, it's Peter saying, "I won't allow Bill to use animal products" but continuing to use them himself. In that case it doesn't matter if animal products are morally acceptable or not, the primary problem is the injustice.
I think he'd look better in a military soft top.
We actually own a VW Thing (my wife and her two siblings) and are in the process of selling it. It was her mom's.
I have very few LGBT friends these days.
If I'm not mistaken, this makes Pamela at least the 3rd transgender woman on Cellar that is also conservative. Just an interesting observation...nothing more.
When I cast my vote for President, I voted for the person I thought was best to lead the entire country in many topics, not just one or two.
Really?
You thought wrong.
Maybe not, she didn't specify:
to lead the country where...
Identity politics is DIFFICULT! Should one vote for the candidate who said consistently that gay marriage should be
illegal because it is
morally wrong, right up to 2013 - the year the law changed and it was clear nothing more could be done about it?
Or this asshole?
(I'm just asking, I don't actually vote)
Maybe not, she didn't specify: to lead the country where...
GOOD QUESTION!!!
And, I'd like to know if they think his cabinet will help him get us there.
Possibly the fourth. I forget where Susan fell on the spectrum.
Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and
policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.
Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words.
Give the man a chance; he might surprise you.
With all due respect, Pam, his words are becoming increasingly meaningless...for his supporters and the rest of us.
Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.
Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words.
Give the man a chance; he might surprise you.
#1
​ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO CATHOLICS
Religious Liberty
Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.
#2
"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman," Trump said during the interview.
"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."
#3
Trump told the Fox News host that he supports leaving the issue of transgender rights up to the states. "You know, Obama’s getting into a very tricky territory," he said, referencing the guidance issued by the Obama administration. "The amazing thing is so many people are talking about this now and we have to protect everybody even if it's one person … but this is such a tiny part of our population."
O'Reilly asked Trump if he provided gender-neutral facilities in his properties. “No, we don’t have that," replied Trump. "I hope not. Because frankly, it would be unbelievably expensive nationwide. It would be hundreds of billions of dollars." If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths
Whats the problem?
From your own link ...
He (Trump) said he would favor a domestic partnership law that afforded same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples.
and from another
At one point, he (Trump) said transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner could use whatever bathroom she preferred in one of his luxury buildings — an offer Jenner later took up at the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Manhattan.
Since his election, Trump has not publicly addressed transgender issues, though he did ease some concerns among gays and lesbians by saying that he considered same-sex marriage to be settled law.
LinkSo that everyone understands why the "
First Amendment Defense Act" is a discussion topic:
The bill provides that the federal government "shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."
This language isn't accidental, and it isn't being misconstrued. It's very clear.
How is the Federal Government discriminating against these people now? How will that change with this bill?
Well there was that County clerk a couple years ago who got fired for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays. That was a local thing but it was a government thing
She did wrong and was fired. What more would you like to happen, glatt?
This is my only question. Why would they put that language in there?
It's certainly not "for no reason," so there has to be some reason. And because we're not mind-readers, we have to guess, based on what reasonable assumptions we can make, don't we? This is speculation, yes. Speculation is a large part of being aware of the world around you. People don't announce their intentions. People have even been known to obfuscate their intentions--believe it or not!!
Useful queries: is this part of a recognizable trend? (It is.) Have other examples of this trend been straightforward in announcing their intentions, i.e. have the hundreds of state-level, gay-hating laws been similarly, misleadingly packaged and titled? (They have.) Does creating the appearance of innocent, "religious" intentions create a "safe space" for bigots to openly deny basic human rights to other citizens, whose lives are none of their goddamn business? (It does.) Would you have to be naive, disingenuous, and/or extremely obtuse to claim ignorance of the obvious here? (You most certainly would.)
Nothing more. She should have been fired.
But she wound up being fired because she put her religion before her job. That proposed law up two posts above talks about protecting people who act based on their religious beliefs
But she wound up being fired because she put her religion before her job. That proposed law up two posts above talks about protecting people who act based on their religious beliefs
Same with the now out of business bakery.
I've scrolled through every page of this thread but I can't find the question...? (Did this yesterday also, couldn't find it, and resumed having a busy day at work.)
If it helps you to understand why I take a long time to return phone calls, texts, instant messages, and questions posed to me in message boards, it's because answers are complicated and I take a long time to weigh all of the factors before reaching a conclusion I'm 100% comfortable with. Also, the aforementioned busy day (and/or other social commitments such as literally being at a BBQ with friends), and also a fair amount of social anxiety / avoidant personality (aka Roast Beef syndrome).
"Shaming me" for not responding quick enough doesn't help. If you care.
There's nothing to think about, just go with preconceived notions. :lol2:
I answered your "is it news" question in the thread it's in. It's not this thread.
How is the Federal Government discriminating against these people now? How will that change with this bill?
If this is the question you're asking why I didn't answer, I'll attempt to answer it, in this thread. But it will take me more time than I have right now, so I'm not going to do it right now. If you care. The short answer is that the question already got answered in this thread, subsequently before I had a chance to formulate an answer that I felt was comprehensive--somebody else answered the question easily in a few short sentences, which isn't my best skill. If you care. Federal vs. State/local is a complicating factor. Those laws don't always agree, and sometimes the overlap, and sometimes their jurisdiction isn't clear. Sometimes you pass a law in one place as a model for what you'd like to see done somewhere else. And I think the post you deleted touched on the question of making a political statement, which factors into this as well. If you care.
If you only care about replies that come in a timeframe that you're demanding (but not specifying), and then throw a temper tantrum when people don't comply with your unstated expectations, then best to just forget about it. It's not a chatroom, people can read and reply at their leisure, I had thought.
I've lost interest, I'm out.
Okay, you've driven me away from the Cellar a second time now.
I get the message, I won't come back. You don't want me here.
Two minutes in the penalty box for Tu Quoque Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
[ATTACH]58857[/ATTACH]
From the citation:
The bill aims to prevent the federal government from taking action against people who discriminate against LGBTQ people for religious reasons.
American was founded on a basic principle. One never imposes their religious beliefs on anyone. Ever. Earliest settlers came here because others imposed their religious beliefs on them in a harmful (discriminatory) manner.
Does not matter what your religion says. No American - for legal and for ethical reasons - no American does or cares what any other persons sexual preference is. Even worse, if that is done for religious reasons, then the perpetrator should be condemned as something worse than a Satanic worshiper.
No decent American ever discriminates against LGBTQ people for religious reasons. Ever. Religion is only a relationship between that one person and his god. It has no place imposed on anyone else anywhere in this world for any reason. We had to learn the evil of such religious actions the hard way - Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, etc.
Religion is only how a man interfaces with his god. No man imposes religious beliefs on anyone else - if he is a good American.
First Amendment Defense Act should be retitled "We want to rape you because out religious says we should". But that would be too honest.
I don't think that's going to pressure the electoral college.
and then throw a temper tantrum when people don't comply with your unstated expectations
Psychological projection
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
I believe that Hillary would have been as productive as Obama was allowed to be. Trump is going to go for it all...pro-money makers at the expense of all classes except the money makers. We will have to see if its a harm or benefit to you and me. Did Reagans trickle down do much for you?
EXACTLY.Reports are that Clinton ended up having more faithless electoral voters than Trump. :lol2:
Yup, I just read that 7 electors changed their vote from Clinton to another.
That was part of Keith Olbermann's recent movement: you'll never get enough Trump guys to flip to Hillary, but if all the Hillary electors agreed to switch to a moderate Republican, maybe they could get enough Trump guys to flip to Romney or McCain or whoever the R's wanted. Looks like the message only got through to a few.
I'm going to miss a president who can speak in coherent, complete, and eloquent sentences. I'm going to miss a president who doesn't jack off on twitter, with 'rediculous' statements. I'm going to dislike having a president who sounds like nothing more than the blowhard at the local country club. God have mercy on our souls, yup.
... Looks like the message only got through to a few.
The Few, The Proud, The FAITHLESS.
... Clinton lost four electors in Washington state — three voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one voted for Native American tribal leader Faith Spotted Eagle. She also lost an elector in Hawaii to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. ...
... Several Democratic electors in other states tried to vote for protest candidates but they either changed their votes to Clinton or were replaced. ...
Wow, i knew sexo was military but i had no idea he had the intelligence or the cojones to be a Marine! I just got so much more respect for you, not just some mindless grunt, you. :hug:
Once upon a time ...
The Marines and Special Forces were on a war games joint training exercise. A Marine battalion was told that their "enemy" was on the other side of a hill from them. Marine reconnaissance spotted a man standing on top of the hill. He was wearing a Green Beret, Rolex watch, star sapphire ring, and carrying a Randall knife. The battalion commander ordered that a platoon of Marines be sent to get him. As they charged up the hill the Green Beret disappeared down the other side. The Marines pursued up and over the hill until they too were out of sight.
The rest of the battalion's Marines then heard blood curdling screams and cries for reinforcements ... followed by total silence. Then a man appeared, standing on the top of the hill, wearing a Green Beret, Rolex watch, star sapphire ring and carrying a Randall knife that looked like it hadn't even left its sheath. He also wore a big grin.
The battalion commander ordered a company of Marines to go after the man. They charged up and over the hill as the man disappeared down the other side. Once again there were blood curdling screams, cries for reinforcements, and then total silence except that this time a lone Marine came crawling back down the hill ... as a man appeared, standing on top of the hill, wearing a green beret, Rolex watch, star sapphire ring, Randall knife, a big grin and motioning to the Marines, with his hand and arm, for more to come to him.
The lone returning Marine, unable to walk, was crawling back to his battalion when the remainder of the Marines found him at the base of the hill as they were coming to his rescue. He valiantly struggled to raise himself to his feet, came to the position of attention, and saluted his commanding officer saying "Sir, go back, save yourselves, it was a trick ... there's TWO of them!
Reports are that Clinton ended up having more faithless electoral voters than Trump. :lol2:
Just shows you how faithless conservatives are
And the Green Beret said, "You're not in this for the fighting, are you?"
And the Green Beret said, "You're not in this for the fighting, are you?"
:thumb:
Psychological projection
Gaslighting
Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity. Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.
Well that was a great big FAIL.
Clinton lost more electoral votes than Trump. She made history again. Abandoned by the most electors ever!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Coulda been worse.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Coulda been worse.
Cite.
"Cite."
How it coulda been worse?
Coulda been worse if the parasite, or the commie, or the dope-smoker, or the tree-hugger, had won.
The parasite woulda foisted up, for the next four to eight, the same crap that's been foisted for the past eight.
The commie woulda been worse, by far, in the grade and amount of crap he woulda foisted up.
The dope-head and tree-hugger, both bein' decent human beings, woulda been rendered null by all the less than decent folks in gov (who ain't goin' anywhere).
No, this is an incivil world (to be mild about it) and such a thing calls for pitbulls, not poodles (or leeches).
And, yeah, all I've 'cited' is my opinion (just like others in this thread, not a one of them required to 'cite' diddly).
But but, a parasite did win.
The coup de grâce would be for Trump to put Monica Lewinsky on his staff. :rotflol:
The coup de grâce would be for Trump to put Monica Lewinsky on his staff. :rotflol:
He doesn't want anyone smarter than him.
He doesn't want anyone smarter than him.
:thumb2:
He doesn't want anyone smarter than him.
Then he should have a position for Hillary.
She can have Monica's old job.
Merry Christmas, sexobon.:elkgrin:
I disagree. But, let's say Trump 'is' a big old tick about to attach himself to America's hairy hindquarter...I'm way more comfortable with him (and his cronies) making bucks off the presidency than Clinton.
Why?
Cuz he's far more likely to leave me be, sumthin' Clinton and her kind cannot do.
If he does some of the things he claims he wants to do: great!
If he does nuthin' at all (and leaves me be): great!
Again: Clinton and her kind cannot, would not, leave me be.
Had quite enough of strangers dickin' around with me...eight years is plenty.
I hope you're right, but he did run on not leaving women, religious minorities, or brown people alone.
Knew that would come up...frankly, I don't think Trunp and his kind are gonna do squat to women, gays, trannies, blacks, Muslims, or your Aunt Fanny...if there's a profit to be had with Trump in the Big Chair, those groups -- I think -- are just as likely to be in on it as any one else.
But, let's say Trump goes wild on the ladies, the queers, the self-mutilating he/shes, the darkies, and the Allah-ites (and your Aunt Fanny [cuz she’s a royal cunt and deserves it]): fuck 'em...I'm white, straight, a man, and an atheist, meaning a 'privileged, misogynistic, apostate breeder'...the more militant of all those groups would hang me and gut me, so, again: fuck 'em.
If Trump is a baddie, get offa your ass and defend yourself.
Sure as shit, as Clinton 'is' a baddie, that's what I woulda done.
We agree that Hillary would have been a bad choice. People who don't wish ill on their neighbors are trying to figure out what the trip-wire should be in opposing the other bad choice. I get that you are out of the fight and won't stand up unless Grand Inquisitor Franklin Graham comes for you the individual. There is also the bullshit DNC position just like the bullshit RNC position with Obama which places party before country and opposes just to oppose on the off-chance a Trump policy actually helps working people. So for the rest of us the question is at what point should folks be on the barricades?
Always.
Extend not a jot of trust to any employee who presumes to direct you, the employer. Be ready to shoot 'em in the head (figuratively, at least) all the damned time.
Hope for the best (work for it if you can); prepare for the worst.
Bruce,
About your better advice...
If what those young folks in the bottom half are studying is how do to things for themselves, then -- yeah -- that's the ticket cuz the best revolution is simply not needing the other guy (especially the guy, or gal, who wants to direct you).
But if those young folks are studying anything that's currently in vogue on campuses, well... :neutral:
But if those young folks are studying anything that's currently in vogue on campuses, well...
Its called an MBA. How to learn things that build, create, or invent nothing.
Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.
Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words.
Give the man a chance; he might surprise you.
I think he's starting to make his position pretty clear....
I think he's starting to make his position pretty clear....
Yep. He attacks everyone. Then changes his position. Then changes it again. A strategy for confusing everyone. A moving target is harder to pin down.
It keeps the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans off guard. Westerners are just collateral damage. Now you know how it feels.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.