Do U agree w/ Jindal RE Trump: narcissist, egomaniac?
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Oh, that's right you're a liberal... So can we assume you will be voting for the felon or maybe you prefer the old burned out socialist hippie?
Actually I am not, I'm Canadian. You assume a lot of things, and you know what the old saying is about assuming.
republicanchick
New member
I think most candidates are a little narcissistic... but Trump...
well, isn't his name so apropos?
+
Doesn't make you any less liberal now does it...
Right now yes...he is "Trumping" them all. (pun intended)
republicanchick
New member
dumb
68% do not want Trump
that 30-some-odd %
seems to be the kind of shiny object the unthinking will always follow
+++
republicanchick
New member
where does it say in the Bible or in Church archives.. encyclicals... etc..
that Jesus was a socialist?
Did Jesus say that the rich should be ROBBED to support the poor?
I thought Jesus was rather into INDIVIDUALS, not empires... taking care of the poor and disadvantaged?
the state "taking care of people" is why individuals no longer do... They tell themselves: Why should I do anything for that homeless person when there are resources from the gov to take care of that problem?
well, re homelessness, there really aren't even gov programs... not the right kind of programs anyway... but in any case...
when everyone htinks the gov is taking care of the disadvantaged... no need to have compassion on them..
and as we can clearly see
(to speak of).. no one does
_
++
Last edited:
Trump and Carson put together have a majority in the recent polls. The consensus is converging on those two, and mostly away from the rest of the field. Fiorina is rising a bit, but she's far behind, as is Cruz, the only one in the top four who's ever been elected to anything, and he's the sad puppy of the current field.
If the GOP doesn't want Trump, they really need to get about ten to drop out and concentrate their nickels and dimes. Or throw all their weight behind Carson, if that suits them. See if any of those megalomaniacs have the grace that Perry did.
Please try to read WITHOUT your cynical conservative POV. Socialists do NOT equate to communists and YOU do not understand a thing about a socialism in it's proper context, which BTW, is still democratically elected.
As someone who serves an institutional and ecclesiastical dictatorship, you now advocate for INDIVIDUAL freedoms? Where did the RCC get most of it's money from over the centuries? The people who could LEAST afford it. I won't bother getting into details about selling favours.
Funny you would advocate for the state enacting laws against some personal moralities, such as being gay, but not support them in taking care of it's OWN constituents in the area of health and equality?
How very hypocritical of you. :nono:
Jesus was a liberal socialist? Tell us about that...was he also pro-homosexual, pro-murder (abortion), & pro-theft? I wasn't aware that Jesus aligned himself with these attributes that liberals hold as core doctrine.
So will be putting your support behind the felon or the burned out old socialist hippie Rex?
Felon? There isn't a felon in the race, that I know of. Closest actually just dropped out.
Bernie? He sure doesn't seem burned out.
:blabla: liberals...demoncrats...same animal, own your heritage, yours is the party of racists. Always has been...
Hillary is a felon, and if any other person holding an SCI clearance would have been caught for even one of her transgressions regarding the handling of classified material they would be under the jail for many years...your lawlessness or lack of recognizing it is noted. You answered my question without knowing it, you showed you will ignore a lawless politician as long as they are a liberal...that is what I was digging for, thank you for showing you have absolutely no scruples but, you are in good company most liberals have no respect for the law for their leaders or themselves.
:chuckle: OK, if you say so...
Conventionally, you only call someone a felon after they've been convicted. That has objectively not happened. You're letting your desires get ahead of the evidence and the facts. She may yet face some penalty for some aspect of her emails, but at this point, it's unclear what the facts actually are. And it's not actually just to assume the worst, no matter how typical it may seem of her or anyone who works for her.
If you ever hope for Hillary to be held responsible for anything related to her emails, you better be glad the FBI is following the facts rather than their biases as you are. But you don't actually care about that, you are just thrilled to have something to attack her for. The fact is, your response to me is pure projection. In fact, I doubt you actually care about whether she's actually ever charged with anything. You think I'm biased in favor of Hillary because of your bias against her. You expect me to let her off easy because that's what you want me to do, because that's what you would do in the same position.
That's simply untrue. I don't even like Hillary Clinton. But there's no justice in how you want to approach this situation. You don't even know, unless you are a secret FBI investigator, or a Hillary staffer, who did what, because that hasn't been determined yet. There can't be any liability, criminal or otherwise, until those basic facts are established, nor can the breach even be mitigated. And it well may be that the person responsible for diverting or mishandling the classified information isn't her, but may be on her staff. I know you want to assume the worst, but that's not what a proper investigation requires.
Yes, it's my biases that have been laid bare here. Well done, ace.
Handling or even possession of classified material outside of a secure setting (private server) is a felony. Personal destruction of classified data outside of proper chanels & methods without authorization is a felony. These two things have been established (A) that she possessed classified data on her personal server & (B) that she went to great lengths to destroy said material when she was being found out. Do you also say Nixon was not guilty in the watergate scandal because he was not convicted? The fact reamains that she may never see a jail cell but, her crime is a felony which ergo makes her a felon.
It is not a projection at all, I am well aware of the standard when it comes to classified material and I also know that the standard is being skewed because of who she is...that is not bias that is a fact. Either the standard is upheld the same for all that work in the intelligence community or there is no standard at all.
Be advised there will be no justice served while this president & this Attorney General which works for this president are seated in power. Your argument that she cannot be held accountable for so-called unmarked classified material in her possession would not be so bogus if she was not breaking the law storing it on a oprivate sevor in the first place. Ignorance of the law is no excuse...especially so inn her position but, let's be frank here Hillary and this administration have no respect for the law, or or rules governing the security of this nation.
You did a fine job of showing your bias' in the last post & this one, I expected nothing less. :thumb: