Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Your virtue has been well and truly signalled and noted recedite.

It was a comedy roast. Essentially a group of comedians trying to one each other up. Giving out after the fact would be like saying that all the other players took your money after a poker game.

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson is polling twice as high as Stein. Among those who say they'll vote for Stein are protest voters but even among them once they read more of her views (ban GMO, instantly destroying agriculture and cause food riots, courting anti-vaccers etc.) and her running mate's views (the Jews did it) they'll not be long dropping her.

Both Libertarian or Green are protest votes mostly this time out. A lot who would vote Green wouldn't really be for the above, just like somebody voting Libertarian might not realise many in the Libertarian party have a problem with the 1960's civil rights act etc.

It's anybody but Trump but not quite Hillary and vice versa!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/what-is-aleppo-asks-us-presidential-candidate-1.2784232

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate in the 2016 US presidential race, asked, “what is Aleppo?” when questioned about a major flashpoint of the Syrian civil war on Thursday.

The gaffe came during an MSNBC interview about the Syrian crisis and the ongoing battle in that country’s biggest city, Aleppo, which has been divided for years into government and rebel sectors.

“What would you do, if you were elected, about Aleppo,” Mr Johnson was asked.

“About Aleppo. And what is Aleppo?” he responded.

“You’re kidding?” the MSNBC interviewer said.

“No,” Mr Johnson said.

“Aleppo is in Syria . . . It’s the epicenter of the refugee crisis,” the interviewer said.

“Okay, got it. Got it,” Johnson said.

Appearing dumber than Trump is quite the achievement.

robindch wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

You've erased Trump's offer to pay legal costs from your memory? If you rough the protester up a bit I'll pay your legal fees.

No doubt, according to Trump, that was the media distorting a story by quoting his words directly in the context in which they were said.

Personally, I'd be more worried - in no particular order - about his hopelessly touchy self-esteem, his crushing ignorance, his dishonesty, his massively over-inflated self-worth, his emotional immaturity and toddler-level vanity, his gross tastelessness, his inability to behave with decency or honor or respect, his crass acceptance of a Purple Heart medal, his insulting of the parents of that dead muslim soldier, his support of Farange, his dog-whistle suggestion that gun supporters should deal with Clinton, his apparently bottomless degradation of everything he touches.

One could go on listing his disreputable qualities but there's only so much diskspace on the boards' backend servers.

You forgot the video where he mocked the reporter with the physical disability (hands).

Here:

Trump, who was /is polling at 0% among black voters, goes pandering in a predominantly black church. Much cringing ensues:

recedite wrote: »

He was really mocking the guys selective memory. Kovaleski had originally reported on this..
[.YOUTUBE][New Jersey celebrations on 9/11][/YOUTUBE]

But nowadays the media like to pretend that it never happened.

In that case, why did Drumpf act like a stereotypical handicapped person if all he wanted to do was mock this guy's "selective memory"?

recedite wrote: »

A Muslim wife is not expected to speak out when in the same room as her husband. I think we all understand that. It's not an insult to observe the reality of the culture.

You repeating the insult doesn't exactly defuse it, rec. The claim that "a muslim wife doesn't speak out when in the same room as her husband" is simply not true, as you would know if you had actually spent any time in rooms with any Muslim families.

There's a huge difference between "what we all understand" and simple ignorance feeding on Daily Mail-type coverage.

The woman in question has gone on record as saying that she didn't talk at the Convedntion about her son's death because it would be too emotional for her. Trump's psychopathy and bigotry would prevent him from understanding why anyone would care so much about what, after all, is only a dead Muslim, so he came up with the typically Trumpian "probably maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me, but plenty of people have written that."

Now, since you're so keen on cites, would you like to see if you can dig up a cite for Trump's claim that "plenty of people have written" that Ghazala Khan was "probably maybe" not allowed to have anything to say.

No? Can't find anything? Not going to try because you already know the result of your search could only embarrass Trump?

Here's a tip. When you're shilling for Trump, it's a bad, bad mistake ever to start asking Trump critics for cites. They'll find cites, and they they'll ask you for cites, and then your position will collapse faster than an overripe mandarin topped by a dead squirrel. In any cite-demanding contest, the Trump supporters are always, always going to come off worst.

Well, at least Catholics are supposed not to use condoms, at at one time were supposed not to eat meat on Fridays. But the claim that "a muslim wife doesn't speak out when in the same room as her husband" doesn't even have that kind of foundation. It's just something that someone pulled out of his DailyMailhole and Rec, poor sap, fell for it.