2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
What is interesting is that he could actually get A LOT of #NeverTrumpers to vote for him. Many people who would never vote for Trump also really don't want to vote for Hillary. If Bernie is a viable 3rd option, I personally would vote for him because I'm not worried about his crazy policies getting passed and I actually think he is a good, smart guy.

In a world where the electoral college is generally not "split" in each state, none of the candidates would get the nomination through electoral votes. Then it would go to the House of Representatives?

This is how I feel as well. I would vote for him as a third party simply because he would be the only option that has a soul.

That being said, I disagree with him on almost all issues. Especially with free college tuition and breaking up the banks. The latter of which could put me out of a job and an idea that wouldn't actually fix anything. So I think it says something about how bad the choices are that I would vote for him, considering he's consistently told me that he wants to put policy in place I do not like, one of which, could cost me my job. Ha

Frequent posters here know I'm a Bernie supporter, but hopefully I've made it somewhat clear that I don't agree with all of his policies. I like the idea of a utopia but the reality is much different. He's not going to get some of his policies passed (universal healthcare, free college, 50% tax rate, etc). With that said, like you two have mentioned, he's by far the more reasonable choice over HRC and Trump because he's a decent human being with a lot of experience and no divisiveness in his campaign or policies. He dominates the IND voting block, hispanics, and younger voters and he'd without a doubt pull the #neverTrump and #neverHillary crowds to at least consider him. The question is would he get enough to win?
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Nlot only an asshole but a fool. Regardless of politics this will make a lot of people angry and damage his business.

And I'm sure he doesn't recognize the irony of saying that he won't help a person in need because he's a Christian. And the additional irony that he's on board with a two-time divorcee who has had extra-marital affairs.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Frequent posters here know I'm a Bernie supporter, but hopefully I've made it somewhat clear that I don't agree with all of his policies. I like the idea of a utopia but the reality is much different. He's not going to get some of his policies passed (universal healthcare, free college, 50% tax rate, etc). With that said, like you two have mentioned, he's by far the more reasonable choice over HRC and Trump because he's a decent human being with a lot of experience and no divisiveness in his campaign or policies. He dominates the IND voting block, hispanics, and younger voters and he'd without a doubt pull the #neverTrump and #neverHillary crowds to at least consider him. The question is would he get enough to win?

No, I do not believe so. Not without an even greater triggering event for both HRC and Trump. The US has been seen as a two party system for too long that it is ingrained into most folks and a third party choice (even when relatively popular) has only turned out to throw the election into a plurality instead of a majority (Bill Clinton first term).
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
No, I do not believe so. Not without an even greater triggering event for both HRC and Trump. The US has been seen as a two party system for too long that it is ingrained into most folks and a third party choice (even when relatively popular) has only turned out to throw the election into a plurality instead of a majority (Bill Clinton first term).

Or divert enough votes in key areas to steer the election from the person who actually got a majority of the popular vote (George W. Bush first term).
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
No, I do not believe so. Not without an even greater triggering event for both HRC and Trump. The US has been seen as a two party system for too long that it is ingrained into most folks and a third party choice (even when relatively popular) has only turned out to throw the election into a plurality instead of a majority (Bill Clinton first term).

Or divert enough votes in key areas to steer the election from the person who actually got a majority of the popular vote (George W. Bush first term).

Bernie has already said he wouldn't run third party out of fear of pulling a Ralph Nader. But that was before Trump was the nominee (which matters). There are a lot of voters who do not want to vote Trump (just like there are a lot who don't want to vote HRC). If there was ever a time a 3rd party option was viable, it's now with Bernie, who has a gigantic voting block (there's a reason he keeps beating Hillary in most open primary elections and has outperformed almost all of the polling).

However, the chances of a person getting 270 votes is probably small. Which then means what, that the House and Senate choose?
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Bernie has already said he wouldn't run third party out of fear of pulling a Ralph Nader. But that was before Trump was the nominee (which matters). There are a lot of voters who do not want to vote Trump (just like there are a lot who don't want to vote HRC). If there was ever a time a 3rd party option was viable, it's now with Bernie, who has a gigantic voting block (there's a reason he keeps beating Hillary in most open primary elections and has outperformed almost all of the polling).

However, the chances of a person getting 270 votes is probably small. Which then means what, that the House and Senate choose?

He's doing pretty well in open primaries because of his support with young people. But he's cleaned up in caucuses, which have the lowest percentage of participation. That's worth noting.

I think, in the end, Bernie will carry it to the convention. Hillary will say some things that make him feel good and reinforce the "revolution." That will cause him to throw his support behind her. I'm not sure if he'll make a big stand on the floor of the convention like Hillary did for Obama, but he'll support her (as he previously said that she is 100 times better than any Republican on her worst day).

Hillary will end up getting lots of his supporters as a result. Some young people will migrate to Jill Stein, but it won't be a significant number in states that matter.

That's my prognostication.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
He's doing pretty well in open primaries because of his support with young people. But he's cleaned up in caucuses, which have the lowest percentage of participation. That's worth noting.

I think, in the end, Bernie will carry it to the convention. Hillary will say some things that make him feel good and reinforce the "revolution." That will cause him to throw his support behind her. I'm not sure if he'll make a big stand on the floor of the convention like Hillary did for Obama, but he'll support her (as he previously said that she is 100 times better than any Republican on her worst day).

Hillary will end up getting lots of his supporters as a result. Some young people will migrate to Jill Stein, but it won't be a significant number in states that matter.

That's my prognostication.

You're probably right all around. I want to add that he dominates the IND voting block which has pushed him to victories in open primaries. The general is all open voting. That only helps Bernie.
 

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
However, the chances of a person getting 270 votes is probably small. Which then means what, that the House and Senate choose?

Yeah I think it's the House of Representatives that will decide it if no one gets 270.

In that scenario I think Trump or Hillary wins but who knows. At least we can say it wasn't our direct vote that caused Trump/Hillary to be President.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
Frequent posters here know I'm a Bernie supporter, but hopefully I've made it somewhat clear that I don't agree with all of his policies. I like the idea of a utopia but the reality is much different. He's not going to get some of his policies passed (universal healthcare, free college, 50% tax rate, etc). With that said, like you two have mentioned, he's by far the more reasonable choice over HRC and Trump because he's a decent human being with a lot of experience and no divisiveness in his campaign or policies. He dominates the IND voting block, hispanics, and younger voters and he'd without a doubt pull the #neverTrump and #neverHillary crowds to at least consider him. The question is would he get enough to win?

I have a hard time understanding how a moderately successful independent voter between the age of 30-45 finds Bernie to be more reasonable than HRC. If you have an upward trajectory, i.e., good paying job, investments, retirement, good schools for your children, a safe home for your family, etc., how in the hell is he the more reasonable option? Wouldn't HRC and the status quo be more reasonable and appealing?

Some of his policies are divisive and some of his supporters are the most divisive people I've ever encountered. Certainly not you or all of them but some of them are just nuts.
 

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
I have a hard time understanding how a moderately successful independent voter between the age of 30-45 finds Bernie to be more reasonable than HRC. If you have an upward trajectory, i.e., good paying job, investments, retirement, good schools for your children, a safe home for your family, etc., how in the hell is he the more reasonable option? Wouldn't HRC and the status quo be more reasonable and appealing?

Some of his policies are divisive and some of his supporters are the most divisive people I've ever encountered. Certainly not you or all of them but some of them are just nuts.

I think by now it's clear that the problem with Hillary is not her "policies" (which change based on what she thinks can get her elected) but that she does not appear to be a good person.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I have a hard time understanding how a moderately successful independent voter between the age of 30-45 finds Bernie to be more reasonable than HRC. If you have an upward trajectory, i.e., good paying job, investments, retirement, good schools for your children, a safe home for your family, etc., how in the hell is he the more reasonable option? Wouldn't HRC and the status quo be more reasonable and appealing?

Some of his policies are divisive and some of his supporters are the most divisive people I've ever encountered. Certainly not you or all of them but some of them are just nuts.

I get what you're saying about the status quo seeming pretty good for me, because it's working for me. But I have a massive problem with big money in politics, trade policies, foreign policy, and the corporate giants getting the breaks they do. Voting HRC completely contradicts these personal beliefs. The wild and crazy ideas that Bernie has, I just don't see getting passed so it's basically moot for me. Which means I need to look beyond that when comparing the two candidates. Also, trustworthiness is a big deal to me and Bernie wins. I have yet to come across someone who has been able to defend Hillary's lies, pandering, flip-flopping, and voting record. Also, she comes across as a horrible human being (along with Trump). It would make voting for Bernie pretty simple, imo, even if I weren't a Bernie supporter originally.

As far as his supporters, I feel like every candidate has their low-info voting block who misrepresent what the candidate is saying. For example, I've seen Bernie supporters try and defend "free stuff by making the rich pay for it" and it's ridiculously ignorant. The uninformed voter upsets me with every candidate, but I try and let it bounce off of me.
 

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
If I'm trying to convince you, I won't appeal to what the Bible says. Arguments against morality and/or legality of abortion do not typically appeal to the Bible. The most common argument against the legality of abortion is something like this:

(1) Abortion generally violates a person's rights.
(2) Any practice that violates a person's rights should be illegal.
(3) Abortion should be generally illegal.

You might not accept the premises, but the argument does not appeal to personal revelation, or Scripture, church teaching, etc. Just because you reject the argument does not make it "religious."

There is a difference between having a debate or argument on something and if that is law or not.

My point is abortion is legal and has been for over 40 years. If people in the Republic want to try and make it illegal, that's fine. If it happens it happens. What I have issue with is elected officials trying to prevent abortion via peripheral measures because they are unable to make it illegal.

Does that make sense?

We were talking about abortion, as I recall. I don't believe "homosexuality" should be illegal, nor do I believe that the state must provide marriage licenses to anyone. I don't approve of the state telling churches/schools/businesses who care they can hire and fire, though.

I actually referenced both abortion and homosexuality and you actually quoted homosexuality....


So the claim "directly killing the innocent is always wrong" can be established by science? Which scientist proved that? Moral claims cannot be established as true by the scientific method.

You seem to be refusing to accept my point. You and I can have a conversation on morality. We can use science as a foundation or not. You can use your religion as a foundation as well. It's a part of your sum.

The challenge with religion is many take an interpretation of a book as fact and will not allow their views to change because they bow to a higher power in terms of judgement. If I use science, I accept that science can change and thus my spectrum should change with it. It's not fixed or absolute.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
My point is abortion is legal and has been for over 40 years. If people in the Republic want to try and make it illegal, that's fine. If it happens it happens. What I have issue with is elected officials trying to prevent abortion via peripheral measures because they are unable to make it illegal.
Let's be absolutely clear about something. The pro-infanticide lobby has gone way beyond wanting abortion to be legal. What they want is for it to be subsidized and on-demand. If you want to inject moral relativism into our laws and deny the fundamental truth that certain things are inherently evil, we should at least be able to agree that people should have to fund their evil themselves.

You spew bullshit ideals about how people should have the "beliefs" of others thrust upon them, but that's exactly what government-funded abortion does. Not only do pro-life people have to tolerate abortion in their society, they actually have to pay for it.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
My point is abortion is legal and has been for over 40 years.

Slavery was legal for the first 100 years of our republic, and apartheid was legal for 100 years after that. Whether or not something is legal is irrelevant to its morality.

What I have issue with is elected officials trying to prevent abortion via peripheral measures because they are unable to make it illegal.

Does that make sense?

No. State legislators are unable to make abortion illegal because of Roe v. Wade, but they still feel it is gravely immoral, so they do what they can to restrict it within our current legal framework. The existence of Roe v. Wade does not make abortion presumptively moral anymore than Dred Scott v. Sanford did so for slavery.

And one doesn't need divine revelation to conclude that killing the unborn is immoral.

The challenge with religion is many take an interpretation of a book as fact and will not allow their views to change because they bow to a higher power in terms of judgement. If I use science, I accept that science can change and thus my spectrum should change with it. It's not fixed or absolute.

"Some Christians are fundamentalists. Therefore Christian arguments should be banned from influencing public policy." That's a great argument, Dale.

For the majority of Christians, there is no conflict between science and morality. Here's St. Augustine (from The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written about AD 415):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

And aside from some hand-waving about science "framing the debate", you never addressed NDgradstudent's argument that science is incapable of answering moral questions. That's quite obviously true. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is".
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
The challenge with religion is many take an interpretation of a book as fact and will not allow their views to change because they bow to a higher power in terms of judgement. If I use science, I accept that science can change and thus my spectrum should change with it. It's not fixed or absolute.
Okay Mr. Scientist, let's use science. SCIENCE tells us that a distinct human being with a unique DNA structure is created when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell. Deliberately ending the life of a human being is murder.

The science is no more complicated than that. There's absolutely no intellectually consistent defense of elective abortion that also condemns "normal" murder.

Notice: I didn't need to quote the Bible or the Catechism.
 
Last edited:

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,005
Reaction score
5,046
Slavery was legal for the first 100 years of our republic, and apartheid was legal for 100 years after that. Whether or not something is legal is irrelevant to its morality.

One of my favorite quotes:

"An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

Abortion violates natural law and therefore is unjust.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I've been pro-choice for awhile because:

-My personal definition of "when life begins" used to be at first breath...until my wife got pregnant and I heard my daughter's heart beat for the first time. I've since changed my definition to around 5-6 weeks, when the heart begins to beat and other organs develop. Basically, the first week a woman realizes she's pregnant, she should make a decision right then and there because waiting any longer, the baby is well into the fetal development phase.

-I've never felt it was my business to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, if it's within the law. I understand and respect the rights of the unborn child though, so I can see where this becomes a heated debate.

-The "Turnaway" study showed that 76% of women who were refused abortions ended up on welfare within two years. So I've felt that if it's so important to protect the unborn child from termination, then it should equally important to protect the born child if living in poverty. Yet there's sometimes seems to be a disconnect here. (I haven't looked up the statistics, but it's my personal experience that people who are pro-life, also are anti-government welfare programs and safety net programs. Maybe that's inaccurate, but it's what I've experienced.)

*I understand and respect the opposing views. So if someone could address these three points, I'd appreciate it. I like the insight as it helps broaden my views.
 

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
Slavery was legal for the first 100 years of our republic, and apartheid was legal for 100 years after that. Whether or not something is legal is irrelevant to its morality.

But slavery was abolished because the majority found it to be moral to do so. As I said before, if the majority decided to abolish abortion..that's just how the Republic works and I am ok with that.

But Jesus does not vote.

No. State legislators are unable to make abortion illegal because of Roe v. Wade, but they still feel it is gravely immoral, so they do what they can to restrict it within our current legal framework. The existence of Roe v. Wade does not make abortion presumptively moral anymore than Dred Scott v. Sanford did so for slavery.

And one doesn't need divine revelation to conclude that killing the unborn is immoral.

That's your opinion. There are others who disagree with it.

My original point was if State legislators want to do a moral crusade they should do it outside of the Republican party because they have ruined the party with their moral crusades.

"Some Christians are fundamentalists. Therefore Christian arguments should be banned from influencing public policy." That's a great argument, Dale.

For the majority of Christians, there is no conflict between science and morality. Here's St. Augustine (from The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written about AD 415):

Why is it that all Trump supporters can be lumped together or all Muslims can be lumped together because of a few but somehow all Christians should be provided shade from fundamentalist Christians?

FWIW, I agree that almost all Christians are good people and it's a very small few that are bad. That's why I used the term 'Crazy Christian' in my posts. It's the Crazy Christians that have ruined the Republican party and I am happy to see them getting shut out now.


And aside from some hand-waving about science "framing the debate", you never addressed NDgradstudent's argument that science is incapable of answering moral questions. That's quite obviously true. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is".

Gish Gallop. That's why.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
I think by now it's clear that the problem with Hillary is not her "policies" (which change based on what she thinks can get her elected) but that she does not appear to be a good person.

I distrust and hate all candidates equally so maybe I underestimate much this means to another voter.

I get what you're saying about the status quo seeming pretty good for me, because it's working for me. But I have a massive problem with big money in politics, trade policies, foreign policy, and the corporate giants getting the breaks they do. Voting HRC completely contradicts these personal beliefs. The wild and crazy ideas that Bernie has, I just don't see getting passed so it's basically moot for me. Which means I need to look beyond that when comparing the two candidates. Also, trustworthiness is a big deal to me and Bernie wins. I have yet to come across someone who has been able to defend Hillary's lies, pandering, flip-flopping, and voting record. Also, she comes across as a horrible human being (along with Trump). It would make voting for Bernie pretty simple, imo, even if I weren't a Bernie supporter originally.

I'm not as convinced Bernie wants big money out of politics, and I do not believe it's possible to decrease or eliminate the influence of money in politics without first amending the tax code to provide a simple flat tax. As long as Congress holds the power to provide special benefits to some and/or place burdens on others (giving tax breaks or increasing tax burdens), the money will be there to influence their decisions.

By no means will I ever defend HRC. She's certainly a liar and a panderer. I think the flip flopping isn't a huge issue, though. I can't imagine there's a single person who has never changed their mind on an issue. Education and life experience will make you rethink and reconsider your positions on issues. The question with her, or any candidate, is why did she change her position - was it for political gain or did she genuinely change her mind on an issue.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
But slavery was abolished because the majority found it to be moral to do so. As I said before, if the majority decided to abolish abortion..that's just how the Republic works and I am ok with that.

But Jesus does not vote.

But Christians do.

That's your opinion. There are others who disagree with it.

Look out! We've got a straight-talking relativist over here:

kate4.jpg


Objective moral truth apparently doesn't exist. Only human opinions. Hottest take I've read all week.

My original point was if State legislators want to do a moral crusade they should do it outside of the Republican party because they have ruined the party with their moral crusades.

You don't honestly believe that the Democrats do otherwise, do you?

Why is it that all Trump supporters can be lumped together or all Muslims can be lumped together because of a few but somehow all Christians should be provided shade from fundamentalist Christians?

None of those debating with you have done that. Just you.

FWIW, I agree that almost all Christians are good people and it's a very small few that are bad. That's why I used the term 'Crazy Christian' in my posts. It's the Crazy Christians that have ruined the Republican party and I am happy to see them getting shut out now.

Glad you're willing to differentiate between the majority of Christians and fundamentalists now. NDgradstudent already debunked most of your claims about the influence of religious conservatives within the GOP on the last page.
Gish Gallop. That's why.

This is borderline trolling. You're recent posts have been insulting and disrespectful. And when someone tries to engage you in a good faith debate, you respond with this nonsense. gkIrish already dinged you once for ad hominem, so you're very close to earning your first vacation from IE. If you can't participate in these sorts of threads civilly, I suggest you stick to football-related topics.
 

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
Glad you're willing to differentiate between the majority of Christians and fundamentalists now. NDgradstudent already debunked most of your claims about the influence of religious conservatives within the GOP on the last page.

I have always differentiated between the groups.

As for Grad debunking...I guess there is little point trying to argue with people who base their life off a book of fiction. But here are just a few good reads on the subject.

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party - Salon.com

The Christian Right Killed the Republican Party

The Tea Party & Religious Right are Destroying the GOP - 2016 Election

9 Ways Christian Zealots Ruin America | Alternet

How the Evangelicals Doomed the Republican Party, God and (Maybe) America

The End is Near for the Extremist Wing of the Republican Party
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,118
Bernie has already said he wouldn't run third party out of fear of pulling a Ralph Nader. But that was before Trump was the nominee (which matters). There are a lot of voters who do not want to vote Trump (just like there are a lot who don't want to vote HRC). If there was ever a time a 3rd party option was viable, it's now with Bernie, who has a gigantic voting block (there's a reason he keeps beating Hillary in most open primary elections and has outperformed almost all of the polling).

However, the chances of a person getting 270 votes is probably small. Which then means what, that the House and Senate choose?

We already know that HRC will get more Democratic votes. Bernie as a 3rd party candidate would have to pull a significant number of republicans into his camp in order to win. Even the independents, which gave him significant support in the primaries -- particularly in open elections -- don't seem to be a realistic source of voters in a general. Many of them will vote for Trump, and when given the chance in the primaries, many did just that. The only thing a Bernie third party candidacy would cause is a Trump presidency -- and the end of civilization as we know it.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I have always differentiated between the groups.

Really?

I am all for religious freedom. I just don't want it within five miles of the public sector or politics.

The problem with religious folk is they somehow think that they have the right to impose their belief structure on others.

You're the one who's been painting with a broad brush here and suggesting that a large swath of Americans should be disqualified from public office for being religious.

But here are just a few good reads on the subject.


Ah, yes. Let's look to Salon and HuffPo-- those beacons of objective political analysis-- for a fair and balanced description of religious conservatives.

As for Grad debunking...I guess there is little point trying to argue with people who base their life off a book of fiction.

Last warning. That's insulting, and not remotely accurate for the vast majority of Christians; particularly not the ones you're arguing with here.
 

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
And I'm sure he doesn't recognize the irony of saying that he won't help a person in need because he's a Christian. And the additional irony that he's on board with a two-time divorcee who has had extra-marital affairs.

That is what killed me about this. He professes that he's a man of God but then leaves someone on the side of the road because he disagrees with her politics? WTF? THAT is what he thinks Jesus would do?

Again, I know that not all Trump supporters are like. Shoot, the best man in my wedding, is now going to vote for Trump since Cruz is out, and he's a great guy, decent husband (LOL) and a great dad. But man, so many of the ones I come across are pretty awful, and we hear far too many stories like the guy above. Just like the violent protesters are a bad look for the anti-Trump movement, guys like the tow-truck clown and the violent supporters at his rallies are a bad look for the Trump movement. There's gotta be a better way to disagree politically without being complete assholes about it to each other.
 
Top