Well, actually, the Secret Service has been extending protection to presidential nominees for some time. In his memoir Secret Service Chief, U.E. Baughmann (Chief from 1948-61) describes maintaining details on both John Kennedy and Richard Nixon on opposite sides of the country just before the 1960 election. Baughmann lamented that he was only supposed to “officially” assign a protection detail to the winner, once one had been determined, and that it would be easier if he’d had more discretion in the matter.
Oh, please, that “accelerationism” nonsense never works. That’s the same logic the German Communists used to support Hitler, because he’d discredit right wing politics and then they could take over. Most of them ended up too dead to know just how bad their error was.
A President Trump would lock far-right politics into a dominant position for decades, and result in a far more powerful Presidency. And create a great deal of death and suffering along the way.
Because he’s not in a position to give them cover, yet. But as President he could.
Hardly. You are deluding yourself if an ethnic cleansing campaign against millions of people isn’t going to involve a* lot *of killing. And anti-homosexual “conversion therapy” is torture, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not. And beatings, and theft, and rape; I’m already hearing the “jokes” about “keeping the pretty ones in the basement”.
Amazing how the surrogates defend the groping.
You know the next bomb-shell tape will be of Trump using the “N-word”. They’ll probably save that one until the week of the election.
“It’s just a word! Hillary robble robble muderered emails robble Benghazi!”
“They say it to each other all the time!”
“Trump can’t be no racist— he had them blacks on his TV show!”
“There weren’t no racism no more, afore Obozo and Black Lives Matter come along and messed everything up a’gin!”
“Trump’s just saying what we all think!” (Shhhh, Grandpa… you’re not helping!)
It’s amazing how the Democrats defend Bill Clinton.
And the wife still married to him.
If I were you, I wouldn’t vote for him.
Alternate reality: How can you vote for a woman who won’t fight to save her marriage?
Not really. It’s more of a ‘How can you vote for a woman who won’t stand up for herself?’
And she wants to stand up to the world?
She’s been married to a sexual abuser and assaultant for years. I don’t see the feminists against her or that, I see them against Trump.
Fucking Hell.
Keep hearing Trump is far right. He is and always has been pro-gay rights. He’s apparently pro-transgender rights. He’s pro-abortion rights or at the very least neutral and doesn’t really give a #@$#. Two huge planks of the social right, and he will never support them. He does support lowering taxes on the rich, which ironically is what the other wing of the conservative party wants and they don’t support him. He wants to institute a child care program which I’ve heard will cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Not really a far-right idea. He says he wants to send back immigrants, but even there he flip/flops to some degree and probably will just send back convicted criminals. If you want to label Trump as a populist conman who is using the far rights hatred of Hillary and Democrats to further his agenda, fine, but he is not a conservative and he is not far right. Compare his views to Ted Cruz to see the difference.
It’s called minding their own business. Their marriage isn’t the business of other people.
A silly argument, she’s been standing up to the insane hatred of the Republicans for decades. That don’t hate her because she’s weak, they hate her because she’s strong.
Because there’s no reason to think he’s a “sexual abuser” outside of evidence-free accusations by people who are probably paid or coerced into it by the Republicans.
Noticed how both sides (Clinton/Trump) are avoiding the name Jeff Epstein. A possible third rail for both Bill and Donald’s reputation.
Ever notice how quick Trump supporters are to answer any issue with their candidate with “But Hillary!”
That isn’t defending your candidate, that’s deflection.
That’s hilarious.
Everything I read in the Elections forum leads me to think you do it worse then anybody - ‘Make up things for Hillary to counter Trump with’. ‘Trump hates women’. ‘Trump - no good! Evil!’
All the while going ‘Please don’t look at our candidate. We know she sucks’.
Deflection.
Whoops,here are three of your friends and colleagues who won’t be able to vote for Trump this election.
Fucking terrorists. Maybe you can send them some money for their commissary account in prison.
There’s no need to “make up” anything, he’s spent decades demonstrating how horrific a person he is.
Yup.
From the article cited:
Yep, that is well deserved praising and an explanation… [sarcasm]
No, his explanation for voting for Trump because of the staff he will choose will be a competent one, has been shown also to be a stupid reason.
Nothing really wrong with the staff he has now, save that he doesn’t listen to them.
It’s a stupid reason to you. The guy, like many of us, is weighing the pros and cons of Trump and what he says he wants to do with the pros and cons of Clinton and what she says she wants to do. That’s all there is to it.