We all know Trump didn’t found ISIS because it isn’t bankrupt.
Sarcasm is a way to get a point across, so what point was he supposedly trying to get across with this “sarcasm”?
It’s not at all sarcastic. Perhaps he was looking for another word. I mean, I could see someone writing that as an over-the-top meta-troll on a message board, channeling what Trump might say. In that case it would be sarcastic. Trump certainly is not making light of this negative view of Obama: in fact, the comment was meant to reinforce the negative feeling even if the words were not meant literally.
Looks like someone sat Donny Two-Times down and explained to him what the word “literal” means. Now if someone could just explain sarcasm to him.
That goes to show what his whole campaign has been from the beginning: a joke.
Geez, some people just don’t get sarcasm.
What you and Trump advocate would result in more dead Americans and more dead Syrians. I don’t want to weaken America and get lots more people killed, so I oppose you and Trump.
You don’t know people. There is a reason why this country was a republic and not a democracy.
The United States is both a republic and a democracy. This weird notion that republics can’t be democracies has to be put to rest.
France is a republic AND a democracy.
Cuba is a republic, but is not a democracy.
Canada is not a republic, but is a democracy.
Saudi Arabia is neither a republic nor a democracy.
What?
And if that is not acceptable how about amending my previous statement to this is why we started as a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy, aka mob rule?
Hey, TruthSeeker: You realize that most of those 300K dead were killed by the “progressive leader, Assad”, right? Had Obama worked with Assad, that number would probably be larger.
“Your people, sir,—your people is a great beast”
- Alexander Hamilton
We’re a representative democracy, and a democratic republic, and a constitutional republic, and a constitutional democracy. These don’t conflict with each other. There are no direct democracies, at least not that I know of.
There is also the biggest remaining issue for single issue voters - abortion. I’m pro-choice, but it you really believe that millions of babies are slaughtered every year, I think you could justify a mostly principled, sane vote for Trump. (I don’t think Trump himself is really pro-life, I think he is “don’t really give a fuck” and willing to give on that issue for votes). And I think that’s about 20% of our electorate.
I don’t think Trump gives two shits about abortion. But he has pledged to nominate right wing justices to the Supreme Court. So if you’re a single issue voter and abortion is your issue and you care nothing about anything else, then a vote for Trump isn’t illogical.
This is absolutely correct. I saw a post my dad (a hardcore right-wing Fox News Republican) made on a Facebook post yesterday. He said “I could never vote for someone who believes the slaughter of babies is okay.” He’s not alone in thinking this.
Forget any other issue, they will only vote for someone who outwardly states he or she wants to make abortion illegal. Forget the fact that in Obama’s presidency, abortion rates have dropped to their lowest rate since 1973. Forget the fact that under both Reagan and W, abortion rates actually went up from year to year on two occasions. Forget the fact that since 1980, the number of abortions has gone down in greater numbers under Democratic presidents than it has under Republican presidents.
Nope. The only thing that matters to some Republican voters are the words that come out of the politician’s mouth-- “I am pro-life.” Those voters don’t care about facts or apparently the actual reduction of abortions. Just electing people who say “I am pro-life.”
This is another blatant lie from Trump. In fact I founded ISIS. I didn’t mean to, but you know, everyone makes a mistake or two in their life. 
I agree - that part of the conservatism, religiosity etc. that makes certain voters vote Republican no matter what (though like you, I sincerely doubt Trump actually cares about abortion).
The thing is that normally, these voters would vote Republican - but increasingly, lots of them feel alienated from that party. Why? Because mainstream Republicanism is felt to represent the economic winners, and many of these folks are economic losers. Worse, its doctrines tend to portray economic winners as deserving of that status, and economic losers as equally deserving of that status.
This has lead I think to a big build-up of anger - these people have to vote Republican (because of their opposition to abortion, first among many other social issues - which preclude them from voting Democrat). Yet the party seems to take them for granted and looks down on them.
This is the anger that a demagogue populist like Trump exploits. He’s “Republican”, but his message to these folks is one they want to hear: if they are economic losers, the fault is not theirs, but is a conspiracy against them of elites, foreigners, etc. to exploit them: Trump will turn that all around and “make America great again”, meaning make them prosperous and politically powerful.
So these folks need not just vote against abortion (most Republican candidates are that), they can do that and vote for someone they feel will ‘turn things around’ for them. This, I think, explains why so many are so enthusiastic about a candidate who is utterly lacking in even the basics of suitability for office.
Balderdash. Malory Archer founded ISIS. Everyone knows that.
Along with the buffalo, if we do the right dance.
I suppose you think that makes it… okay. ‘I’m sorry I caused all that terrorism’… You don’t even sound like you mean it, [del]Bruce[/del] coremelt!
Sorry, had to.