General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

Joe Fan said:
Liberals coming unglued out there --

Ivanka Trump just had a bumpy start to her Xmas holiday ... an out-of-control passenger on her flight began verbally berating her and "jeering" at her 3 kids.

Ivanka was on a JetBlue flight leaving JFK Thursday morning with her family when a passenger started screaming, "Your father is ruining the country." The guy went on, "Why is she on our flight. She should be flying private." The guy had his kid in his arms as he went on the tirade.

A passenger on the flight tells TMZ Ivanka ignored the guy and tried distracting her kids with crayons.

JetBlue personnel escorted the unruly passenger off the flight. As he was removed he screamed, "You're kicking me off for expressing my opinion?!!"

BTW ... Ivanka, her family and bunch of cousins were all in coach.
-----------------

update-graphic-red-bar.jpg

8:35 AM PT -- JetBlue just released a statement, saying, "The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly. If the crew determines that a customer is causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight. Our team worked to re-accommodate the party on the next available flight."

7:48 AM PT -- The husband of the unruly passenger tweeted an hour before the plane took off, "Ivanka and Jared at JFK T5, flying commercial. My husband chasing them down to harass them."


1222-ivanka-flight-attack-twitter-6.jpg
Click to expand...
.

The left are constantly making the news because of their attitude toward the Trumps. Way too many on that side of the isle are showing the classless and bully attitude. Ivanka handled it perfectly and once again show how the Trump kids have such class.
 
I35 said:
. ...The left are constantly making the news because of their attitude toward the Trumps. Way too many on that side of the isle are showing the classless and bully attitude. Ivanka handled it perfectly and once again show how the Trump kids have such class.
Click to expand...


Yes, the easiest way to see through this (and most of their reactions to anything) is simply to reverse it.

Imagine a Trump supporter chased down Chelsea Clinton and her child through an airport and onto a plane to verbally harass them?

They would be having fits
 
What blows my mind is that certain liberals think this is a cool and good thing to do. The guy was bragging about how his husband was running off to harass Ivanka. It smacks of a man wanting to gather tons of "likes" and re-tweets, and praise due to his "taking a stand".
If this had been the Obama girls, the media would have gone nuts. Granted, Ivanka is a grown woman, who is involved in the administration, but, Trump's grandchildren had to listen to this nut, and are totally innocent regardless of your feelings about Trump.
Another example of the tolerant left.
Ironically, if Ivanka's husband had, say, punched this man hard in the face, Jarod could have been charged with a hate crime since the man was gay. This world is going nuts.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the airlines handling of this situation, and Delta's response to the "prankster" who was kicked off a plane after shouting Arabic statements and making aggressive gestures with his pals. Fake news goes both ways, but both these were reported as if the "prankster" was an innocent victim, and the man who accosted Ivanka and her family was calmly making a statement without checking the facts.
 
I'll admit that I haven't followed this story too much, but the biggest difference if this had been similarly situated liberal is how that politicians from the opposing party would have been called upon to comment on it. Commentators and media people would be demanding that Republicans condemn the incident in hopes that some wouldn't or wouldn't do it quickly or strongly enough.
 
Obama now brags that he would have beaten Trump because.... wait for it.... people still believe in the "hope and change" that only he offers!! Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!

He might have won, but only because 99.99999% of black people would have turned out for him, not because people believe in "hope and change".

You know Obama isn't going to go away after Jan. 20. There will be no graceful fading away, like George W. Bush, for him. He's setting up his White House in exile. He's rented a 9 bedroom, 8200 sf, $6 million house in D.C. that is two miles from the WH. Probably saving a bedroom for the Obama whisperer, Valerie Jarrett, too.

He's the first President since Woodrow Wilson to not leave Washington after their term was up. He's going to have something to say after every Trump decision. He'll be stirring up the toilet bowl for the next four years.
 
Clean said:
Obama now brags that he would have beaten Trump because.... wait for it.... people still believe in the "hope and change" that only he offers!! Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!

He might have won, but only because 99.99999% of black people would have turned out for him, not because people believe in "hope and change".
Click to expand...

Whether it would have black support or not, he would have won, because he's a much better candidate than Hillary Clinton was, and Trump barely beat her.

Clean said:
You know Obama isn't going to go away after Jan. 20. There will be no graceful fading away, like George W. Bush, for him. He's setting up his White House in exile. He's rented a 9 bedroom, 8200 sf, $6 million house in D.C. that is two miles from the WH. Probably saving a bedroom for the Obama whisperer, Valerie Jarrett, too.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. They claim they're staying in the DC area until the youngest daughter graduates from high school. That may be BS, but the fact that they're only renting the house at least tends to support that their stated reason for staying is likely true. Having said that, both of the Obamas are still pretty young. It would not shock me if one of them tried to get into office again. I could see Michelle trying to do something, and of course, if a Democrat gets in the White House again and with a Democratic Senate, I could see Obama being appointed to the Supreme Court. If that's his plan, then I could see him taking a law faculty job at an Ivy League college (Yale, Harvard, etc.).

Clean said:
He's the first President since Woodrow Wilson to not leave Washington after their term was up. He's going to have something to say after every Trump decision. He'll be stirring up the toilet bowl for the next four years.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Woodrow Wilson, he was damn near dead when he left office. He stayed in Washington but didn't do a whole lot.
 
1) It is my view that Liberals who would berate Ivanka like that on a plane (and in front of her children; is that what happened?) are as mentally ill as far right-wing Christians such as the Westboro Church crowd. Both parties DESPERATELY need to disavow these extremist emotionally compromised nut-jobs.

2) Obama might well have won (in a battle of the moderates) but not necessarily for hope and change; in theory he would not have been plagued by the server matter. Hillary not only exposed us to hacks; she lied about it. Obama would not have been weighed down by this episode and I believe it had a JUST affect on her campaign. Also, he would not have had to contend with the revelation of the Wasserman-Schultz and Brazile campaign to hand the nomination to Hillary. The American people KNEW THIS. They had the facts. It was not fake news.

What's nauseating is how the Left is all up in arms now about the hacks. It goes to show the shamelessness of raw power. In their zeal to pin something, anything (Todd Rundgren) on Trump, they completely ignore what Hillary did (and their previous snow job on the American people about the significance of her recklessness) while trying to use the hacks as a political weapon against Trump.
 
Hollandtx said:
What blows my mind is that certain liberals think this is a cool and good thing to do.
Click to expand...

You see... I believe this type of thing is the evidence of the extreme left. I'm pretty much a Democrat but I'm not a Liberal and how I define it is not so much by the issues (between Democrats and Liberals; for instance I'm ok with Roe v Wade and gay marriage) but instead between their mental state. Democrats are rational (ergo I'm rational! Ha). Liberals (as I define them) are uncompromising and tend to govern through hysteria. You will never cut a deal with them. That is why the Republicans became the party of no. I know people in my personal life that will never come around to my way of thinking on some critically important matters and I no longer attempt to justify my decisions with them. I either agree with them or say no. I see it that way with Liberals. Of course, my comment is a broad-brush but I believe there are rational people on the Left and on the right and it is the good-faith differences in point of view that needs to assert itself. Again? Has it ever been so?
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
That is why the Republicans became the party of no.
Click to expand...

I think the Republicans would have been willing to compromise if Obama didn't have such horrible policies. Plus Obama wasn't willing to give an inch. Actually he wasn't even willing to discuss anything with the Republicans. So they would reject what was put in front of them and as usual the Dems come up with one liners that will stick....."The Party of No." This was proven that the American People rejected his horrible policies the very next midterm election. The party of no has been dominating at all levels every since. This is a blast on Obama and where he was trying to take our country.
 
I35 said:
I think the Republicans would have been willing to compromise if Obama didn't have such horrible policies. Plus Obama wasn't willing to give an inch. Actually he wasn't even willing to discuss anything with the Republicans. So they would reject what was put in front of them and as usual the Dems come up with one liners that will stick....."The Party of No." This was proven that the American People rejected his horrible policies the very next midterm election. The party of no has been dominating at all levels every since. This is a blast on Obama and where he was trying to take our country.
Click to expand...

I think you just have to say no when it is obvious that the other side is never going to stop, deviates from or renegotiates intent at will and begins launching from it's newly gained vantage point.
 
Sheen symbolizes exactly why mainstream Americans hold firm with their convictions and don't bow down to this over-exagerated, cry baby loser nonsense out of Hollywood.

Jesus Man lose an election with at least some sort of freakin' dignity.

I did it in 2012 and the results since are so opposed to my traditional American beliefs it's painful, but I'm damn sure not going to try to circumvent the foundation of this great country just to get what I want.

Feel free to revolt, we're waiting. :texasflag: :usflag:
 
Joe Fan said:
Reasonable in terms of voting would mean --
-- purging the voter rolls of the dead,
-- not giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses,
-- not allowing the Black Panthers to patrol in front of the entry to polling places,
-- not allowing felons to vote,
-- not allowing preachers/ministers to be given "walking-around money" to 'get the vote out," and
-- giving prison time to proven cheaters like ACORN (and not simply letting them reform under a new name).
Click to expand...


 
"Liberal" Twitter users talked about Trump far more than Hillary in 2016
The media was aware of this and even participated in it
But then they mistakenly assumed this "negative enthusiasm" would translate into Hillary votes. But this is not how it works. More faulty analysis.

C03WTcZWQAArHYl.jpg


 
Joe Fan said:
Reasonable in terms of voting would mean --
Click to expand...

-- purging the voter rolls of the dead
Click to expand...
Any reasonable person would agree with this, if it is done accurately. The problem comes when overzealous election officials purge anyone who shares a name with anyone who dies. In practice, this happens all too often with well-meaning purges. The answer is to improve the integrity of voting rolls, not crossing people off when you aren't sure whether it is appropriate to do so.

-- not giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses,
Click to expand...
If illegals are going to be here, I'd rather they be licensed so that they can get insurance. Of course, this begs the larger question of whether we should be more zealous in trying to send illegals back home.

-- not allowing the Black Panthers to patrol in front of the entry to polling places,
Click to expand...
I agree. This gets into difficult first-amendment issues, but we have to try. Nobody should be intimidated away from voting.

-- not allowing felons to vote,
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree for those whose only felony is non-violent. For violent felons, I disagree less strongly. The punishment should be jail term, fine, etc., as opposed to giving up basic rights as a citizen.

-- not allowing preachers/ministers to be given "walking-around money" to 'get the vote out," and
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with this story, but from your limited description I don't understand what is wrong with it.

-- giving prison time to proven cheaters like ACORN (and not simply letting them reform under a new name)
Click to expand...
This was too long ago for me to remember enough to respond in detail. My vague recollection, though, is that most of the allegations against ACORN were pure speculation. Of those for which the facts are known, more were proven false than proven true. Of those that were proven true, the wrongdoing was at a low level. It certainly was not the massive scandal that you seem to be suggesting.
 
Joe Fan said:
Can you imagine some celebrity wishing for Obama's death?
CNN would make it a 24/7 story

Click to expand...


Do you Liberals ever think that you might be voting the wrong way when you have the same ideology as these morons? And don't give me this BS that both sides have them. We are talking about a large amount of morons that are on the left that say things like what Charlie did or the white professor that "wish the whites would get genocide." For the most part the voters that vote for the right are very level headed, very civil, and are very reasonable people that work hard to pay their taxes and to get a head without hand outs. The left is flooded with morons that riot, make constant stupid statements like "I wish I had an abortion." I didn't even go there about Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. None of this can be disputed. Your morons block traffic on major highways. Your morons cry when they lose and election and make threats of causing ruckus. Your current politicians are the most hypocritical than ever in our history. Every time they open their mouth, they insert their foot. When I say "Your morons," I mean that your party gives them everything they want no matter what the consequences are if they just vote for them. They baby them and campaign for them even when they know what they promise is not for the betterment of our country. They want power no matter what it takes without having any principles.

Your party is completely clueless on what is going on in America right now. There is a reason Donald Trump won and you haven't figured out why yet. Most of your party thinks it's about race.

JFK's famous line "Not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." That's a far cry for the motto of the left. "Vote for us and America will give you everything for free." Free education? No problem.

Your party is just a drag on our country. Let's just divide the nation in half and build a wall between the left and the right. Since your party believes you can make too much money then give us the billionaires and millionaires. We won't even tax the hell out of them. You sure don't appreciate our police and servicemen (not like we do anyway), so we will take them too. Your politicians like to give everything they can away for free so you take the welfare people. You want the media? They're yours. What about the states that has oil? You want to preserve your land, then we will take those states with oil so we can drill. You can ban your guns so your whole country will be a free no gun zone (accept the criminals) and we will keep our guns. You want refugees then take them all. We won't take any. I'm sure there are many more issues that we can determine that are for the right or left. Raise your taxes to 90% and become a socialist nation. We will allow the working people decide where their money is spent with small government. I promise you we will have to defend our side of the wall from keeping your morons on that side. Your country will go bankrupt within a year without the right's philosophy of capitalism. It sure won't be the other way around. Sorry for venting, but I feel much better now.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I strongly disagree for those whose only felony is non-violent. For violent felons, I disagree less strongly. The punishment should be jail term, fine, etc., as opposed to giving up basic rights as a citizen.,,,.
Click to expand...

Missing the point, again. Intentionally, I think.
See if you notice the pattern

Two states allow them to vote wholly
Vermont and Maine

Here are most of the states that allow felons to vote after their incarceration is over --
Massachusetts
Illinois
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Oregon
Hawaii
Maryland
Rhode Island
+ District of Columbia

Next are states that allow felons to vote after incarceration and parole (if any)
California
New York
Colorado
Connecticut

Why is this?
Why these states?
This is not rhetorical, there is an answer
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top