Washington Post rules out endorsing 'threat to democracy' Donald Trump in brutal full-page editorial - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759864]Thats good. Off topic but are you sure its impossible to get superpowers from jumping into a reactor?[/QUOTE] [I]Ooooooh[/I] So we can have Hillary and Trump duke it out in a superpowered brawl. I like where you're going with this.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760025]I just randomly picked that one because to go through debunking all his points would take a very long time.[/QUOTE]Then why bother? You picked something and missed the point of my post so ultimately you've gone and achieved nothing except making me grin. I'm very easily amused, that's not much of an accomplishment. [QUOTE]The meeting was closed doors, so the only words are from reporters, which I'm sure you'll argue "have a bias" or "trying to distort his words" in which case it becomes impossible to argue with you.[/QUOTE]Or maybe you can read what I typed up (twice) before sounding off with this horseshit. Blaming me for your inability to form a point and argue it isn't going to make you right, no more so than skirting around my argument and calling foul because you might be proven wrong. Furthermore declaring whatever dialogue I might possibly say in some hypothetical scenario [I]you[/I] cooked up as a reason for why you don't have to isn't going to awe me into conceding anything. (well, conceding nothing [I]nice[/I]) I didn't even make the point that Trump is a good choice for president, or even that he's right, I just pointed out the absurdity in latching on to a possible misuse of terms and claiming that it's good evidence for why he'd make a poor president. That's it. You're the type of person that I have to guard against and make it clear that I'm not voting for Trump, and you're [I]still[/I] acting like I've taken a shit in your cereal. [QUOTE]And I would really like a president who knows what the constitution is. I'd be surprised if he knew what Amendments he cited.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Paramud;50760071]I would say that basic knowledge of the constitution is in fact very important for someone aspiring to be the president[/QUOTE]Do you? I suppose you could argue that "oh but [I]I'm[/I] not running for office!" but that doesn't really matter now does it? I'm sure Obama, Bush, Clinton, or even Bush Classic can't recite the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 12th amendments off the cuff. Only the truly passionate "rabid fanboys" like myself can do that, and I'll be honest with you and admit I had to look up number nine because I wasn't too sure I got the right one. Still a dumb fucking point to cling to and I'm saying that as somebody who owns [url=https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Genuine-Leather-Embossed-American/dp/B00629WC3Q]a pocket copy of the constitution.[/url]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760142] Still a dumb fucking point to cling to and I'm saying that as somebody who owns [url=https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Genuine-Leather-Embossed-American/dp/B00629WC3Q]a pocket copy of the constitution.[/url][/QUOTE] Do you, like, have that so you can whip it out in the event of an impromptu street debate?

I just don't understand how supposed conservatives and free market supporters are rallying behind Trump's protectionism. Protectionism has been shat on since it fucked US in 1930's. Every sane economist from Krugman to Trump's favorite Kudlow says its fucking stupid to do so: [quote]But a 35 percent tariff would be a major tax on American consumers and businesses. It would probably do more damage to the U.S. economy than to China's.[/quote] [URL]http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/26/why-trumps-protectionist-ways-will-hurt-the-economy-commentary.html[/URL] [quote]Free trade is also one of these prosperity building blocks, and Trump’s call for tariffs as high as 35 percent is worrisome in the extreme. We want Americans and workers all over the world to have access to the best-quality products at the lowest possible prices. This is the centuries-long economic law of comparative advantage first taught to us by David Ricardo.[/quote] [URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423141/donald-trumps-protectionism-is-worrisome-stephen-moore-larry-kudlow[/URL] Like do Trump supporters really think they [I]won't[/I] consider it a decent trade-off? Regardless of the tariff, it will still be much cheaper to produce shit overseas when you don't pay for benefits, decent stable factories, and you're only paying them 15 cents an hour. However, we the consumers will be paying for that tariff. It was pointed out during the GOP debate and Trump just blabbered until time ran out.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760142]Do you? I suppose you could argue that "oh but [I]I'm[/I] not running for office!" but that doesn't really matter now does it? I'm sure Obama, Bush, Clinton, or even Bush Classic can't recite the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 12th amendments off the cuff. Only the truly passionate "rabid fanboys" like myself can do that, and I'll be honest with you and admit I had to look up number nine because I wasn't too sure I got the right one. Still a dumb fucking point to cling to and I'm saying that as somebody who owns [url=https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Genuine-Leather-Embossed-American/dp/B00629WC3Q]a pocket copy of the constitution.[/url][/QUOTE] he wasn't referring to amendments, he was referring to these [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html[/url] he said he would protect articles 1, 2, 9 and 12 there are seven he's an imbecile

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760142]Do you? I suppose you could argue that "oh but [I]I'm[/I] not running for office!" but that doesn't really matter now does it? I'm sure Obama, Bush, Clinton, or even Bush Classic can't recite the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 12th amendments off the cuff. Only the truly passionate "rabid fanboys" like myself can do that, and I'll be honest with you and admit I had to look up number nine because I wasn't too sure I got the right one. Still a dumb fucking point to cling to and I'm saying that as somebody who owns [url=https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Genuine-Leather-Embossed-American/dp/B00629WC3Q]a pocket copy of the constitution.[/url][/QUOTE] I do indeed have a basic knowledge of the constitution, as was given to me by my 7th grade history teacher. As I would hope any president would have.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760025]I was on this fence up until now, but now I'm fully anti-Trump, which does not mean pro-Hillary. If you don't vote, don't complain about who wins.[/QUOTE] I reserve the right to complain about whoever wins because if i dont vote they're the reason i didnt vote.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50760226]I just don't understand how supposed conservatives and free market supporters are rallying behind Trump's protectionism. Protectionism has been shat on since it fucked US in 1930's. Every sane economist from Krugman to Trump's favorite Kudlow says its fucking stupid to do so: [URL]http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/26/why-trumps-protectionist-ways-will-hurt-the-economy-commentary.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423141/donald-trumps-protectionism-is-worrisome-stephen-moore-larry-kudlow[/URL] Like do Trump supporters really think they [I]won't[/I] consider it a decent trade-off? Regardless of the tariff, it will still be much cheaper to produce shit overseas when you don't pay for benefits, decent stable factories, and you're only paying them 15 cents an hour. However, we the consumers will be paying for that tariff. It was pointed out during the GOP debate and Trump just blabbered until time ran out.[/QUOTE] It's okay, orgornot told me that he's all for free trade! Tariffs are just taxes to stop companies from leaving the US and going to Mexico, but they're punishments - they can leave if they want to, but they'll be punished. Who cares about a 35% tariff? Trump has the best free trade. He makes the best deals. Trump supporters have no fucking clue about anything to do with economics or policy on any metric. Just watch these forums for a few months and you'll catch on quick that every vocal Trump supporter [i]hasn't the slightest fucking clue[/i] about global economics or domestic policy. They're just rattle off Trump's pre-made list of facts that aren't facts, and act like they're right because Trump said those facts are right. They're not even "Trumpeters," because people who can play a trumpet have talent and knowledge. They're just Trumpets. Tools that act as a mouthpiece to blow out a bunch of noisy hot air.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50760266]They're not even "Trumpeters," because people who can play a trumpet have talent and knowledge. They're just Trumpets. Tools that act as a mouthpiece to blow out a bunch of noisy hot air.[/QUOTE] I have never been so blessed to see such a great play on words.

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50760192]Do you, like, have that so you can whip it out in the event of an impromptu street debate?[/QUOTE]Abso-fucking-lutely, somebody said I didn't know a goddamn thing about the constitution and [B]I proved him wrong.[/B] (he was my dad, that day I bested my father in single combat and became a man) [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50760238]he wasn't referring to amendments, he was referring to these [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html[/url] he said he would protect articles 1, 2, 9 and 12 there are seven he's an imbecile[/QUOTE]Jesus Christ, you too?[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759801]Apparently they stopped teaching about context clues after I went through the first grade because it's easy to infer Trump meant [I]amendments[/I] rather than [I]articles[/I] and probably only said articles because that was the word he heard. I've done this, I've said "lizard" instead of "amphibian" when my little sister asked me what kinds of "lizards" live in water. (referring to frogs, she was four)[/QUOTE]Maybe he literally meant the articles, but since hardly anyone ever mentions them or even vaguely references them I'm going to guess that he was referring to the often-debated and talked about amendments. [editline]to make it look pretty[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;50760255]I do indeed have a basic knowledge of the constitution, as was given to me by my 7th grade history teacher. As I would hope any president would have.[/QUOTE]Can you, without looking them up, tell me what the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 12th amendments are? Not many can. Anyway,[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759801]Even if he literally meant articles and thinks that article and amendment are interchangeable terms I addressed that: there's an alarming number of elected officials in our government who are ignorant of the constitution.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759324]really, [I]I don't care[/I] because our government is chock full of people who don't know what the constitution says. Trump is not going to be any different than all those other people, so using any supposed ignorance on his part as some extraordinary reason why he's [I]just terrible[/I] is quite honestly absolutely fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] Look, if you're going to say Donald Trump is a bad choice for president stick with something that isn't nitpicking words the man said, [B]there's plenty of real issues that you can go after without resorting to such petty bullshit[/B]. Plenty of issues. A whole bunch. Like I just thought of three (wall, tax policy, trade agreements) in the course of writing this and I didn't even try.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760327]Jesus Christ, you too?Maybe he literally meant the articles, but since hardly anyone ever mentions them or even vaguely references them I'm going to guess that he was referring to the often-debated and talked about amendments.[/QUOTE] The senator was talking about Article I. Trump thought he was talking about amendments. Anyone who knows the constitution would easily discern "article" from "amendment". Trump probably doesn't even know what the articles are. That doesn't give me confidence he knows what the constitution is. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760327]Can you, without looking them up, tell me what the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 12th amendments are? Not many can.[/QUOTE] We're not the ones running for presidency that should know the fundamental rules of our government. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760327]Look, if you're going to say Donald Trump is a bad choice for president stick with something that isn't nitpicking words the man said, [B]there's plenty of real issues that you can go after without resorting to such petty bullshit[/B]. Plenty of issues. A whole bunch. Like I just thought of three (wall, tax policy, trade agreements) in the course of writing this and I didn't even try.[/QUOTE] I would think nitpicking about the constitution is pretty important because it tells me he doesn't even know what the presidency is.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760327] Jesus Christ, you too?Maybe he literally meant the articles, but since hardly anyone ever mentions them or even vaguely references them I'm going to guess that he was referring to the often-debated and talked about amendments. [/QUOTE] the question he was asked was "how will you as president protect Article I powers" how fucking stupid would you have to be to think the question was about amendments that doesn't even make sense why are you bending over backwards to justify this clear and blatant example of Trump making shit up to mask the fact that he's an ignorant slut who doesn't know jack shit about the US government maybe the guy who thinks global warming is a chinese conspiracy is just fucking retarded

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760371]The senator was talking about Article I. Trump thought he was talking about amendments. Anyone who knows the constitution would easily discern "article" from "amendment". Trump probably doesn't even know what the articles are. That doesn't give me confidence he knows what the constitution is. We're not the ones running for presidency that should know the fundamental rules of our government. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] I would think nitpicking about the constitution is pretty important because it tells me he doesn't even know what the presidency is.[/QUOTE] Trump should be more familiar with the Constitution (as well as the general population) but really you are arguing over petty details. All the technical terms like amendments vs articles vs sections vs clauses are stuff only lawyers get to know off the back of their hand. Getting the technical terms wrong isn't as big of an issue as knowing what the Constitution means in practice. Cameras we use was designed by engineers and scientists who built the components and can tell you different tolerances, modes of operation, focal lengths, optical properties ect, but the bottom line is that when I buy a camera I want to know how to take photos. I understand for arguing over the constitutionality of some of his policies but really this isn't a major concern. Trump isn't rewriting the Constitution. How did we even get on this Constitution stuff when the thread is about a WP article

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760327] Maybe he literally meant the articles, but since hardly anyone ever mentions them or even vaguely references them I'm going to guess that he was referring to the often-debated and talked about amendments.[/QUOTE] "if the average american doesn't know what this is why should a presidential candidate?" Maybe because he's running for the [i]highest political office in the country[/i]. I don't know about you, but I hold [i]the leader of the goddamn nation[/i] to a much higher standard than Bob in Accounting. I expect my president to at the [i]very least[/i] have an understanding of the language of the constitution. The last time we elected someone who was a "chill normal dude I'd have a beer with" hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Are we not allowed to hold the potential leader of our country to a higher standard than John the Carpenter?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760411]Trump isn't rewriting the Constitution.[/QUOTE] He will if he gets his way

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760411]Trump should be more familiar with the Constitution (as well as the general population) but really you are arguing over petty details. All the technical terms like amendments vs articles vs sections vs clauses are stuff only lawyers get to know off the back of their hand. Getting the technical terms wrong isn't as big of an issue as knowing what the Constitution means in practice. Cameras we use was designed by engineers and scientists who built the components and can tell you different tolerances, modes of operation, focal lengths, optical properties ect, but the bottom line is that when I buy a camera I want to know how to take photos. I understand for arguing over the constitutionality of some of his policies but really this isn't a major concern. Trump isn't rewriting the Constitution. How did we even get on this Constitution stuff when the thread is about a WP article[/QUOTE] because we're discussing the reasons why Donald Trump is unfit for office one of those reasons is that he has about as much knowledge of the US Government as a 5th grader we wouldn't still be on this topic were it not for people coming up with increasingly absurd excuses for Trump's many displays of abject ignorance [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50760424]"if the average american doesn't know what this is why should a presidential candidate?" Maybe because he's running for the [i]highest political office in the country[/i]. I don't know about you, but I hold [i]the leader of the goddamn nation[/i] to a much higher standard than Bob in Accounting. I expect my president to at the [i]very least[/i] have an understanding of the language of the constitution. The last time we elected someone who was a "chill normal dude I'd have a beer with" hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Are we not allowed to hold the potential leader of our country to a higher standard than John the Carpenter?[/QUOTE] "I don't know anything about human anatomy or biology, so why should my brain surgeon?"

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50760327]Can you, without looking them up, tell me what the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 12th amendments are? Not many can.[/QUOTE] First is regarding laws establishing religion or prohibiting free speech, second is about militias, don't know what the ninth is, twelfth is about the election procedure. As I have said fucking twice I have [b]basic[/b] knowledge of the constitution, which literally anyone who passed fucking [b]grade school[/b] should have. I am not suggesting that every president should memorize the constitution and carry it around like a bible like some fucking deluded paranoid dingbat.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760426]He will if he gets his way[/QUOTE] If you're going to make an outrageous claim like this can you at least tell me why you think so? He wants to appoint SCOTUS judges but that doesn't change the constitution, only its interpretations. Even still Trump isn't in charge of the judges' decisions.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760443]If you're going to make an outrageous claim like this can you at least tell me why you think so? He wants to appoint SCOTUS judges but that doesn't change the constitution, only its interpretations. Even still Trump isn't in charge of the judges' decisions.[/QUOTE] Because Trump is a man who gets things done

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50760432]because we're discussing the reasons why Donald Trump is unfit for office one of those reasons is that he has about as much knowledge of the US Government as a 5th grader we wouldn't still be on this topic were it not for people coming up with increasingly absurd excuses for Trump's many displays of abject ignorance [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] "I don't know anything about human anatomy or biology, so why should my brain surgeon?"[/QUOTE] If you're talking about surgery as an analogy, lets use a high tech example. Robots performing surgery with high precision instruments know nothing about the human body, only the inputs and isntructions that the doctors and technicians gives it. Trump will make decisions on his own but he isn't going to blatantly ignore his advisers in the White House. Every president that has taken the office has had to learn a lot of shit on the job, and they have a lot of information to take it, which is boiled down to simplified statements by their advisers. The politicians in recent years have all had law experience and so they can sit through bills on their own, and they have economic and business advisers to tell the them the state of the economy. Trump's case would likely be the opposite where most of his knowledge would be in global economics and business laws whereas he would get more help on legal stuff from his advisers. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760449]Because Trump is a man who gets things done[/QUOTE] When has he said he's gonna rewrite the Constitution

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760371]The senator was talking about Article I. Trump thought he was talking about amendments. Anyone who knows the constitution would easily discern "article" from "amendment". Trump probably doesn't even know what the articles are. That doesn't give me confidence he knows what the constitution is.[/QUOTE]I posted a real-life example of hearing one thing and saying another, [B]it happens.[/B] [QUOTE]We're not the ones running for presidency that should know the fundamental rules of our government.[/QUOTE]That's not an excuse, if it counts for Trump it should count for you. [QUOTE]I would think nitpicking about the constitution is pretty important because it tells me he doesn't even know what the presidency is.[/QUOTE]No, you're nitpicking about a choice of a word which, as I've said already, could have been a spoken mistake. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50760387]the question he was asked was "how will you as president protect Article I powers" how fucking stupid would you have to be to think the question was about amendments[/QUOTE]See above. If I really have to chop this down into even simpler parts then we will be wandering into rather ironic territory. [QUOTE]why are you bending over backwards to justify this clear and blatant example of[/QUOTE][QUOTE]maybe the guy who thinks global warming is a chinese conspiracy is just fucking retarded[/QUOTE]I'm saying it's a stupid point precisely because it isn't blatant. It's the equivalent to saying, "hehe u said fuck" and basing a serious argument off of such juvenile bullshit. Why am I supposed to take anything you say seriously if the foundation of your argument is "well he is dumb ok" and you prop it up with [I]this[/I] silly shit. I said already there are [I]plenty[/I] of better things to go for, but nope, you're choosing the word "articles" as damning evidence of Trump's stupidity. I said it was a dumb point to cling to but here you are locked in a death grip trying to pull this stupid, inconsequential bullshit along and screaming at me to pay attention to it. No, I don't want to look at your mutated abortion of an argument, if anything you should be thanking me for violently punching holes in this because if you walk around going "Trump said articles!!!" you're not going to convince anyone to vote against him. Don't worry though, you don't need to convince me. To reiterate all I'm saying is this is a dumb point to make when there's so, [U]so[/U] many better things to argue against. He literally could have made a simple mistake and at the end of the day [I]who the fuck cares he has said way worse things.[/I] [QUOTE=Paramud;50760436]First is regarding laws establishing religion or prohibiting free speech, second is about militias, don't know what the ninth is, twelfth is about the election procedure.[/QUOTE]Well hey, I guess you can. Fair enou- [QUOTE]As I have said fucking twice I have [b]basic[/b] knowledge of the constitution, which literally anyone who passed fucking [b]grade school[/b] should have. I am not suggesting that every president should memorize the constitution and carry it around like a bible like some fucking deluded paranoid dingbat.[/QUOTE]So resorting to calling me a deluded paranoid dingbat is supposed to what, make me take you that much more seriously? Cry? Make me as equally upset as you? I hate to be the one to tell you this but none of the above happened. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50760424]"if the average american doesn't know what this is why should a presidential candidate?"[/QUOTE]"I'm angry at your post JJF but I don't know why, I didn't read them and only skimmed parts but that's okay because I'll make up some stuff and reply to that!" I just said it was a stupid point to make. You people are getting so unbelievably upset that I'm taking issue with such a ridiculous point that you're starting to insult me. (well, one of you is, you're just making things up) [QUOTE]The last time we elected someone who was a "chill normal dude I'd have a beer with" hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Are we not allowed to hold the potential leader of our country to a higher standard than John the Carpenter?[/QUOTE]I'll skip down to this. Please point out where I said that we shouldn't hold a president to a higher standard and also we should absolutely elect a "chill normal dude I'd have a beer with." I think I'd remember saying something so monumentally stupid, but I don't know, a lot of dumb shit has been said in this thread so I might be mistaken. Feel free to prove me wrong though! I did say that he is no more extraordinarily "constitutionally ignorant" than other politicians, so maybe if you squint you could possibly use that. [editline]hmm, this feels familiar[/editline] I notice the other "pro-Trump" arguments I've made are being ignored in favor of bitching about what could be boiled down to, "well that's a dumb thing to say." My first post in this thread has a comment precisely about this.

trump is like the Diocletian of america

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760463]When has he said he's gonna rewrite the Constitution[/QUOTE] He would if he could. He wants to dismantle the establishment after all. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760463]Trump will make decisions on his own but he isn't going to blatantly ignore his advisers in the White House. Every president that has taken the office has had to learn a lot of shit on the job, and they have a lot of information to take it, which is boiled down to simplified statements by their advisers. The politicians in recent years have all had law experience and so they can sit through bills on their own, and they have economic and business advisers to tell the them the state of the economy. Trump's case would likely be the opposite where most of his knowledge would be in global economics and business laws whereas he would get more help on legal stuff from his advisers.[/QUOTE] Trump is historically known for ignoring others. [b]His campaign is built on that.[/b] I don't think that would suddenly change if he became president.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760561]He would if he could. He wants to dismantle the establishment after all.[/QUOTE] And make a new one of his own design, albeit much more unaccountable and authoritarian than the last

I'll just say this here: If Trump tries to get Mexico to pay for a wall, [I]there will be war.[/I] I don't care if that's hyperbolic, I honestly 100% believe that will happen. Mexico will refuse to pay for it, the UN and WTO won't allow it, so either Trump would have to back down - or do something completely nuts. And I'm very scared that if he's President, he will do something completely nuts.

Trump is going to win in a landslide. Honestly I think its hilarious when facepunchers call others names. I come for the laughs. Remember when the refugees were doctors lol.... Then they were mostly women and children......oh. Well mostly men they won't rape or commit terror. Wrong again. Some Facepunchers tend to be college educated and equate intelligence with education. Facepunch is always wrong. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760463]If you're talking about surgery as an analogy, lets use a high tech example. Robots performing surgery with high precision instruments know nothing about the human body, only the inputs and isntructions that the doctors and technicians gives it. [/QUOTE] What if I don't want the government to operate like John Searle's chinese room?

I smell angry liberals. It's okay boys, I know that your convention probably will suck, what with that candidate you didn't really like, that cause you honestly really don't care about taking the center stage, and the fact that she basically changes her opinions faster than the clothes on a Paris Fashion model. You're taking the rage out on threads like this. And that's okay, the same articles, written by the same papers, will here for you, always. Because you know your main candidate isn't.

[QUOTE=Stroheim;50760693]I smell angry liberals.[/QUOTE] So instead of refuting our points, pointing out specifically where we are 'wrong', and trying to convince us that your candidate is better... You call us 'liberals' and mock us. Nice to see you're taking the high road. Not.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50760703]So instead of refuting our points, pointing out specifically where we are 'wrong', and trying to convince us that your candidate is better... You call us 'liberals' and mock us. Nice to see you're taking the high road. Not.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I didn't realize I posted on "The Clare People Rules Out Trump Endorsement in Brutal One Page Editorial". Do you prefer DUP supporter with a minor interest in American liberalism or Sinn Féin supporter with a minor interest in American liberalism? Because I want to know what [U]you[/U] want to be called here.