The Donald is a punk
He makes a statement that Megyn Kelly is on the rag when he did not like her questioning, and lies about it when challenged.
He makes a statement that Carly Fiorina is ugly, and lies about it when challenged.
He mocks a disabled reporter who properly called him on a blatant lie. Lies about mocking him, and doubles down by demanding an apology.
The man is a punk. He speaking is undisciplined, and he is a bully of the worst order.
One would think that after the cult of personality disaster that is Barak Obama, voters would be smart enough to not fall for the same crap yet again. When will Trump supporters come to their senses are realize they are supporting a 70+ year old child that due to a protected upbringing has never had to face his flaws?
He is, as many of us predicted, proving himself to be a joke. The actual joke, and a sad one it is, is that there are those willfully ignorant individuals that actually believe this ass is remotely qualified to be President of our country.
Hillary is a bald faced liar and a bully.
Trump is a bald faced liar, a punk and a bully.
He would be a worse president than Bush. Worse than Obama, and frankly I believe he would be worse than Hillary if only because she will most likely have a GOP Congress to battle, whereas Trump will have one that will at some level support him because he is a Republican.
Wake up an smell the sewage, people.
He makes a statement that Carly Fiorina is ugly, and lies about it when challenged.
He mocks a disabled reporter who properly called him on a blatant lie. Lies about mocking him, and doubles down by demanding an apology.
The man is a punk. He speaking is undisciplined, and he is a bully of the worst order.
One would think that after the cult of personality disaster that is Barak Obama, voters would be smart enough to not fall for the same crap yet again. When will Trump supporters come to their senses are realize they are supporting a 70+ year old child that due to a protected upbringing has never had to face his flaws?
He is, as many of us predicted, proving himself to be a joke. The actual joke, and a sad one it is, is that there are those willfully ignorant individuals that actually believe this ass is remotely qualified to be President of our country.
Hillary is a bald faced liar and a bully.
Trump is a bald faced liar, a punk and a bully.
He would be a worse president than Bush. Worse than Obama, and frankly I believe he would be worse than Hillary if only because she will most likely have a GOP Congress to battle, whereas Trump will have one that will at some level support him because he is a Republican.
Wake up an smell the sewage, people.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Of course it is relevant.How so?quote:Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.It was in no way "whining." And, yes, it was selectively applied because you were the only user of the particular vulgarity.quote:It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.
If you have objected to its use anywhere here, feel free to post the cite.I did not object; I merely stated a fact: it was in bad taste. Is that citation enough?quote:
A quick and easy google of the term returns over 2,000 uses of the term in one way or another in these forums.
Should provide plenty of opportunities.
It has been said that there is no accounting for taste. In my opinion, your statement was in poor taste. In your opininon...well, I don't really care what your opinion is since it is in poor taste.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
It's a fact, it's an opinion, it's whatever you want it to be.Gracious of you.quote:
Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.You obviously do not know the meaning of the word whining. It far better applies to your caviling than my original statement.quote:
It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.It is in poor taste if you use a vulgarity to express a thought that could be as well as or better expressed with an unoffensive phrase.quote:
Your opinion is noted. If you have a better means by which to reference the argument, please post it.
Otherwise, thanks for dropping by.
You are welcome, and thank you as well for your sententious explanation.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Well, tallcharlie, it all comes down to just a few things for me in this matter.
Firstly, I would apologize to you if I felt that you were truly offended. However, after my dealings with you over the years, I find any such claim by you to be dubious, at best. If you had conveyed such feelings to others in the past, it would certainly carry more credibility. Otherwise, you are captive to your own history here in this forum.
Secondly, while there are things which are lawful, but not expedient, I do not find a way to convey the thought and specific forum reference without placing the reference in quotes. You can use whatever terms you wish to post, but please do not presume to have any meaningful credibility to tell me what I should post.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/turd
And finally, an adult response would be to respond to the concept contained in my post, which is the issue I raised.
I am not the issue, whether you would prefer to avoid the concept, or not.
I don't believe I said or indicated even that I was offended, merely that your post was in bad taste, as it was.
Unless I totally misunderstood, your "concept" could have been stated: "I guess the lesser of two evils is no longer an operative approach."
In any event, I enjoyed the reminder of your modus operandi.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.
Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.I do not suffer fools gladly.
You readily and repeatedly admit that you are attacking Trump.
You attempt to excuse your actions by claiming that Trump has certain unique qualities that are not shared by the other candidates.
Yet the fact remains that you are attacking Trump.
What part of "attacking" do you not understand?quote:Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
What part of "(or non-Democrat)" do you not understand?
What part of "the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like" do you not understand?
Why do you fix on one reference to "conservative" among several others referring to Republican and non-Democrat? Is it because your argument is plainly bankrupt? That you must fix on some minor, insignificant phrase to even come close to making a point?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
It is sad to see you need descend to priggery in order to have something to say.
I believe it can be safely stated that you are the one that carried this conversation to an obnoxious degree. I merely stated that your words were in poor taste, as they were.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.I do not suffer fools gladly.
You readily and repeatedly admit that you are attacking Trump.
You attempt to excuse your actions by claiming that Trump has certain unique qualities that are not shared by the other candidates.
Yet the fact remains that you are attacking Trump.
What part of "attacking" do you not understand?quote:Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
What part of "(or non-Democrat)" do you not understand?
What part of "the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like" do you not understand?
Why do you fix on one reference to "conservative" among several others referring to Republican and non-Democrat? Is it because your argument is plainly bankrupt? That you must fix on some minor, insignificant phrase to even come close to making a point?
In other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
That is so clever. Did you think of that one without help?0 -
Not to interrupt this erudite exchange, but I am curious how Trump supporters react to this little gem by Mr. Trump?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/11/mark-levin-blasts-trumps-chameleon-comment-whats-he-going-change
"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
He has proven this is true as he has changed virtually all of his positions over the past 5 years. What does this statement tell up about the convictions of the man?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
That is so clever. Did you think of that one without help?
Thank you. I did.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Not to interrupt this erudite exchange, but I am curious how Trump supporters react to this little gem by Mr. Trump?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/11/mark-levin-blasts-trumps-chameleon-comment-whats-he-going-change
"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
He has proven this is true as he has changed virtually all of his positions over the past 5 years. What does this statement tell up about the convictions of the man?
Sean Hannity's Idol doesn't hold court in this game...Trump sees where the nation is going,and is the best for the job!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
74 comments