General Discussion

AgerolanAmerican

(1,000 posts)

56. ... where anything but rah rah cheerleading is verboten?

Wed May 4, 2016, 05:12 PM

May 2016

taking the man seriously as an opponent does not equate to support

and it's rather bizarre in the disassociated-from-reality sense that you should think it does.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court may be filled due to Trump nomination [View all] Fresh_Start May 2016 OP

Trump is going to be the next President. Dawgs May 2016 #1

Why are you on Democratic Underground jehop61 May 2016 #3

Um, making a prediction is not supporting. Dawgs May 2016 #6

Trump sucks, but how many pundits and statisticians and candidates have underestimated him? I see no Attorney in Texas May 2016 #36

Approximately 100% have underestimated him. virtualobserver May 2016 #51

99 percent nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #57

... where anything but rah rah cheerleading is verboten? AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #56

Because it's not true. FLPanhandle May 2016 #4

Disagree. n/t Dawgs May 2016 #7

....and you make such a convincing argument Stallion May 2016 #9

Well here are a few reasons I posted a few weeks ago. Dawgs May 2016 #15

1- 5 Are Disputed By Actual Hard Evidence-The rest are like-Your Opinion Stallion May 2016 #21

#2 is wrong. Millennials far prefer Hillary to Trump. stopbush May 2016 #35

#2 is right. Millennials won't vote for either. Dawgs May 2016 #38

"Barely beat" Sanders. stopbush May 2016 #41

Yep. And, it's not over yet. Dawgs May 2016 #45

Show the math that supports your assertion. procon May 2016 #10

It's impossible to use math at this point. Dawgs May 2016 #17

Well Egnever May 2016 #20

She won't win. Dawgs May 2016 #33

OK nostradamas Egnever May 2016 #39

I pointed out 10 things. And, I could have pointed out 10 more. Dawgs May 2016 #40

They were all spurious Egnever May 2016 #43

None of them were proven false. The election isn't until November. Dawgs May 2016 #46

And yet, she's winning with many more votes. procon May 2016 #23

Don't need no fancy math nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #59

The money disagrees. Egnever May 2016 #11

The money disagrees NOW. n/t Dawgs May 2016 #18

K well when that mythical time comes when it even starts to narrow. Egnever May 2016 #19

No, they don't. basselope May 2016 #26

Well hi there Egnever May 2016 #29

The money has disagreed for the last 18 months. I'd say a consistent, longstanding pattern exists. LonePirate May 2016 #28

Awwww zappaman May 2016 #13

They don't get it. basselope May 2016 #22

You Got that Backwards Hoss Stallion May 2016 #24

You are so lost. basselope May 2016 #25

And Yet You Have No Evidence to Support Your Opinion Stallion May 2016 #30

He just gave you evidence. Dawgs May 2016 #31

She has more votes, and that IS an undeniable fact. nt procon May 2016 #47

Hillary has the same number of votes as Trump - ZERO. Dawgs May 2016 #48

When you're losing an argument this badly, asinine retorts doom your whole narrative. nt procon May 2016 #49

So, no intelligent response to my facts means I'm losing. Dawgs May 2016 #50

ZERO is the Number of Electoral Votes That Bernie will get in 2016 Stallion May 2016 #66

In closed primaries where Trump had up to 8 rivals??? basselope May 2016 #64

Did you bother to read the post before responding with nonsense? basselope May 2016 #63

YOU SUPPORT TRUMP??? Why are you even a member here if you support Trump? trueblue2007 May 2016 #27

Can I answer before you scold me? Dawgs May 2016 #34

I made that prediction months ago nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #60

does it take much practise to be that snarky. Dem to Dem, you should be a little nicer. trueblue2007 May 2016 #67

HRC gained 19% of the Republican vote last night justiceischeap May 2016 #37

Not a chance. They will gladly vote for him over a Clinton in the end. n/t Dawgs May 2016 #42

I think you're overestimating Trumps "appeal" or HRC's lack of appeal. nt justiceischeap May 2016 #65

I am sure he appreciates your support. Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #52

So you're saying Dem voters will flock to him? Blue_Tires May 2016 #53

Highly unlikely. cali May 2016 #58

Really? LynneSin May 2016 #62

"watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist"? KamaAina May 2016 #2

its their world view Fresh_Start May 2016 #5

The offer to nominate Garland should be withdrawn now lagomorph777 May 2016 #44

Someone like Ginsburg, who was appointed by her husband. Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #54

It would make sense for them to confirm Garland, but Vinca May 2016 #8

True. They are such rigid idealogues that it would be impossible for them to change course. procon May 2016 #12

Lol ananda May 2016 #14

ted will block it. why? Javaman May 2016 #16

Or it could be that they know a Trump nominee could be considerably to the left of Marr May 2016 #32

Sorry, but this is silly. The Feceralist Society picks Republican Supreme Court nominees. Trust Buster May 2016 #55

Clinton will not nominate someone who is "radically more leftist". former9thward May 2016 #61