From here http://macezbrown.macezbrown.com/
I am curious why we don’t see this line of attack more often.
I’m starting to think you could take a grey dog turd, name it Cunt Muffin McGillicutty, stick a toothpick with a tiny Nazi flag on top of it, run it for the presidency, and as long as you put an ® after it’s name on the ballot, it would get at least 95% of the vote from people ID’ing as Republicans. And that’s *if *Jesus himself returned as a square-jawed white man and ran as a (D) against McGillicutty the Nazi Turd.
In other words, it just doesn’t matter who or what they vomit out as a candidate anymore. And it’s not one bit funny.
It’s not funny anymore because there is a more than zero chance that a small child can take control of 1/3 of our government and even if he loses there will be a large percent of our people thinking the election was a fraud. It’s not funny because a lot of people I have known and respected a long time are going to fall into that category. It’s not funny because a lot more of my friends are going to vote for him because they hate Hillary or hate liberals and that somehow she is worse. Hillary at least knows how to fly the plane.
-Mace Brown
At some point in time, Mace Brown thought Trump’s campaign was funny and now he doesn’t. Many, many candidates, pundits, media-types, and internet blowhards keep saying that Trump’s campaign isn’t serious, wasn’t serious, can’t be serious, and they have all been proven wrong. Now it’s Mace browns turn to wake up to reality.
Did you click the “View my complete profile” button on your linked website? He has two (2) followers. I guess everyone else already understands that Trump, his campaign, and its followers are serious AND that he keeps closing the gap between himself and ol’ tired, sick, Hillary.
Kinda depends if you mean “serious” as in “candidate” or “serious” as in “stage four”.
I view it as the clearest evidence against populism that’s come out of the US since George W Bush.
Most people just aren’t very smart, knowledgeable, nor moral (except maybe in the most facile sense). This is, of course, also a pretty good evidence against Libertarianism, unless you don’t care about the welfare of the masses.
It’s an opinion piece. What does the number of followers have to do with anything?
Perhaps the campaign is still a joke. It’s just not funny anymore.
I was in the verge of starting a thread along the lines of this one. I was going to call it “The Beam Me Up, Scottie Thread.”
I have had it with the absurdity of this campaign. The fact that Trump gets coverage as though he were a legitimate candidate-- hell, the fact that he actually IS a legitimate candidate-- there are no words. He blows his nose and it’s news. When he blows his nose tomorrow, it will replace today’s snot on the front page. He is not that newsworthy.
And the endless-unto-oblivion, gumming-to-death analysis of Hillary’s stumble…holy fucking shit.
I want to retreat to the dark side of the Planet Zephron with a black bag over my head. I want to have my body frozen and dropped off at the North Pole, but it would probably thaw and float to the surface because of mythical global warming.
And yet I can’t tear my eyes away from this dumpster fire. Someone please slap me.
You live in Texas and are accustomed to an environment of calm sanity and reason. Hence, you are shocked.
To a large extent, the success of Trump is thanks to the publicity that the Liberal Media gives him, which they do because it is profitable. People are sucking it up, whether they like him or not. And that gives an air of legitimacy and, of course, helps in the sense that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
If the media had simply said, “This dude’s a crank.” And refused to cover him, he’d never have succeeded.
It 's the fact that, for far too many people, all that matters is that the candidate is “popular” and “talked about”-it doesn’t seem to matter what the candidate does or says to reach this point. The ends, any ends, justify the means, and winning is everything. There are people on this board(and people I personally know) that, when confronted with something truly reprehensible that Trump has said or done, have the sole reaction of satisfaction that he(and they through proxy) have caused their mortal enemies upset. There isn’t an ounce of regret or shame, only pride that they have somehow “scored”.
No, they’re still right about his campaign. What they’ve been proven wrong about is assuming that this would be meaningful to people who might be inclined to vote for Trump.
Even if he loses, the fact that 50-60 million people will vote to have him in charge of the military says a lot about the US electorate.
I know people like to pretend ‘both sides are equally bad’ but no, they are not. Who on the left acts like Trump? They never would’ve gotten this far on the left. The left has flaws, but it does not have the streak of authoritarianism and proud ignorance that the modern right displays.
Trump stopped being funny months ago.
Perhaps? The Democrat collective wants it to be true and the Trump supporters don’t give a hoot what the Hillary worshippers have to say on the issue.
The candidates are close in the polls. Trump’s numbers seem to be going up and Hillary’s numbers seem to be going down.
You asked why “we” (whoever that may be?) do not see this particular line of attack (against Trump) more often.
I suggested that it’s because this line of attack (dismissing Trump’s candidacy) has been tried by many, many, many candidates, pundits, media-types, and internet blowhards in the past and it’s repeatedly failed to gain any traction.
But what’s the harm in trying it just one more time. :smack:
What would it take for you to feel shame on behalf of Republicans? Are “winning” and “losing” the only things that matter when it comes to having a sense of pride any more?
[quote=“doorhinge, post:14, topic:765890”]
Trump’s numbers seem to be going up and Hillary’s numbers seem to be going down. /QUOTE]
Your argument comes apart at the “seems”. 
I sorta miss the Doper or two who used to tell us, all important-like, about the Democratic “hive mind”. Good times, good times …
(post shortened)
Are you advocating that it is the media who should decide who can, and can not, be a candidate for POTUS?
What happens if you disagree with the media’s choice? :eek:
Maybe, just maybe, the political parties could hold something like a nation-wide convention to decide who their candidate should be? And then the media could report actual facts and figures about the chosen candidates. And then the voters could decide who they wish to vote for.
Nah. That would be a CrAzY idea.
[quote=“Count_Blucher, post:16, topic:765890”]
The case of Turnip vs Board decided that inclusion of a “smilie” does not nullify a pending indictment. However, the printer is down…
Hahahaha. I’m willing to listen to any reasonable offer you can post in the Elections forum. It will have to include your admitted shame on behalf of all yellow dog Democrats.