Englebert

The was definitely collusion. The Hillary campaign undoubtedly colluded with FusionGPS/Christopher Steele/Russian operatives to influence the election. Trump...not so much. There is definitely a cause for concern. After all of the evidence produced showing the guilt of Hillary and many, many on the Left, I'm concerned that not one person will be held accountable. Equal justice does not seem to exist. And I'm with you Nash, I would sure like to hear everyone's opinion on this, especially those on the Left.

Is this all you have for your rationale that Trump is a wanna-be dictator? Please tell me you have something pertinent to draw such a wild judgement. I've heard many Liberal pundits making this same accusation, but have yet to hear a sane or even close to rational argument for such a conclusion...and I'm still waiting.

Ooops, I forgot about his quip. Makes more sense to me now.

Yes, Obama did make it law. Congress writes and passes legislation, the President signs that legislation into law. Without the President's signature, it would not have become law. And please share some of the acts you feel qualify Trump as a dictator. What actions has he taken that is above and beyond usurping the constitution? When you list these acts, make sure to keep in mind the actions of other presidents so we can see if you feel that they should be labeled wanna-be dictators as well. And if the actions you list describe other presidents, why didn't the media label those as dictators? As far as you last little quip, does TDS come to mind?

Can you name a few policies that Obama enacted that started this wave? What factors do you attribute to Obama that got the economy on the upward trend? Maybe Obamacare?

I sure hope you are right. One thing that scares me is that the Dems seem to be looking for someone out of the old mainstream ideology, meaning the old guard like Hillary and Biden (just like Trump winning the nomination by basically bucking the old guard). The more Liberal, the better. I could be wrong, but I think one of these far, far Left candidates will catch fire and win the nomination. I have no idea who, but I doubt Biden or even Bernie will be the one. Whoever does win the nomination, I'm not sure if the whole party will rally around a uber Left candidate...but that might just be wishful thinking on my part. I don't see a semi-moderate pulling out the nomination. Beto fits the bill of bucking the established ideology, so I'm not so sure he should be written off just yet. But again, I sure hope you are right. Although he scares me, I don't see a Dem candidate that scares me less.

What question is he running from? Oops, I'm still stuck in the recent past. I guess a pertinent question would be: does he stand a chance? I've had the unfortune of hearing some of his platform, which should scare the heck out of any sane American. But then again, most (if not all) of the ones that are already in the race propose the same things. So, in comparison to the other Socialists (formerly Democrat party) running, how does he differentiate himself?

And still you run. What is so hard about defending your own words? What type of person levies accusations, then refuses to stand by them?

Can you backup your allegations? Run little one, run.

Run some more little one. Since you won't/can't come up with a talking point, let's just discuss your latest absurd comment. What deviation from the party standards do you feel gets you branded as a traitor? Let's debate that little gem. Please provide examples of these deviation behaviors. I bet you run again.

Get to work. You have some absurd talking points that need revealing.

But yet you won't or can't deliver any of those talking points that abhor you. It's easy to complain, it's revealing when you have to provide evidence for those complaints. And as we can all plainly see, you can't deliver.

You must watch a lot of Fox News to know what the talking points are. And let's see if you will embarrass yourself some more. Name one single Fox News talking point that you think I or Nash has regurgitated. You are a scared little boy that can only make up stuff then run when challenged to defend your own comments. Really, who could take you serious. You lie, can't defend those lies, then run on to the next subject to insult some more. It's predictable but somehow still comical to witness your immature antics.

My first reply in this thread has pretty much been proven to be spot on. I have a feeling once his enlightened brain comes to the realization of his obvious but oblivious error, he will slink away to another topic. Hopefully he will continue on his current path, considering the entertainment value. When do we reach the point where it becomes unethical to laugh at the obvious mentally challenged? I think we are getting close.

Please enlightened us as to how we are not understanding you. Are our boisterous laughs directed at you preventing your genius mind from functioning? Do you think tagging an insult to your obvious clueless assertion will somehow frightened us into a non-response, thereby saving you from more embarrassment? Just more evidence.

You were challenged to provide evidence for you contention of "hardcore republicans". You can't do it, run like a frightened schoolgirl, then try to insult us like you're somehow enlightened. Can the embarrassment for you get any stronger? So yes, limited creativity in free thought seems to identify you to a tee. You prove it with each post. More evidence is just keystrokes away.

But somehow you feel the need to engage with insults. Do you feel threatened? How does an enlightened mind internalize such threats to their...well actually, I have no idea why you feel threatened, but it shows loud and clear. Does the fact that us laughing at your limited creativity in free thought threaten you?

How does someone so enlightened not even understand the context and meaning of stevenash's quote. Based on your response, that SR-71 Blackbird is working overtime today.

You seem to laugh a lot a stuff you don't seem to understand. Don't worry, we are still laughing at you.

The question is pretty clear and straightforward. It should be a slam dunk for someone enlightened. What points of emphasis to you attribute to us board members that leads you to believe that we are on the extreme end of the Republican Party? Please embarrassed yourself some more by exposing your limited cognitive abilities that rely solely on worn out talking points and negative stereotypes.

Sounds like a SR-71 Blackbird flew directly overhead.

Awesome!

You posted yours just as I was posting mine.

My thoughts are that if society deems you dangerous enough to strip your right of self protection, then you should still be locked up. If a person is deemed dangerous to the point of capable of taking another life, he doesn't need a gun to do it, and society should be shielded from him. But I can also see the viewpoint of those that think a violent offender should never own a gun. I'm not so sure convicted persons, or people incarcerated, should not be allowed to vote. I would not let prisoners vote on who will be their warden, but selecting political representatives seems to be a different subject. I would not want them to be allowed to vote for anyone that can give them favors. I can see a whole prison population telling a gubernatorial candidate they will vote for him en masse if he will grant them a pardon. Other than that, I can't see a logical argument for stripping the right to vote. Maybe if convicted of voter fraud. Hopefully we will get some more responses.

Thanks for the reply. I thought this topic would get more responses.