The Man the Founders Feared

[homersapien 11,812]

http://www.nytimes.c...ers-feared.html

........The reasons for the rise of Mr. Trump are undoubtedly complicated and will be studied for decades to come. That Mr. Trump’s rise has occurred in the Republican Party is painful for those of us who are Republicans. That more and more Republicans are making their own accommodation with or offering outright support for Mr. Trump — governors like Chris Christie and Rick Scott, the former candidate Ben Carson and the former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich — makes things even worse. Because we can no longer deny what Mr. Trump is and what he represents. The prospect of turning the party apparatus over to such a person is sickening.

The founders, knowing history and human nature, took great care to devise a system that would prevent demagogues and those with authoritarian tendencies from rising up in America. That system has been extraordinarily successful. We have never before faced the prospect of a political strongman becoming president.

Until now.

[JoeBags7277 759]

We have never before faced the prospect of a political strongman becoming president.

Until now.

Lincoln, Teddy, Woodrow, FDR, LBJ, Dubya, Obama......

NEVER???

NEVER???

[homersapien 11,812]

That's right, never.

The closest we've had is perhaps Andrew Jackson, who openly defied the Supreme Court.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

It is interesting about all of these negative reports continuing on trump and how bad he will be. You rarely see anything this negative about H or Sanders or even Cruz. Could it be that the media along with the donor class are afraid that if trump gets the nod to compete in the general election that he will win? It sure seems that way. We constantly hear about protesters at his events but the media and pundits aren't critical of the protesters, especially after blocking traffic to the event, wearing KKK hoods inside the event, etc. People tend to forget that the campaigns pay to rent out these venues and thus it is considered a private event. I don't have any problems with peaceful protests and encourage them to be honest. I do have problems disrupting events inside the venue. It seems that the media is complicit in not investigating why these protests are seemingly more and more organized, which leads me to believe that the far left is triggering these just to keep it in the news.

There are many on this board that think all trump supporters are idiots, etc...but they have the same mentality as the elites who think that they know better than all of the people voting. Well people are pi**ed with the establishment...get used to it. There have been elections in the past just as bad...(see Jackson and others).

[homersapien 11,812]

It is interesting about all of these negative reports continuing on trump and how bad he will be. You rarely see anything this negative about H or Sanders or even Cruz. Could it be that the media along with the donor class are afraid that if trump gets the nod to compete in the general election that he will win? It sure seems that way. We constantly hear about protesters at his events but the media and pundits aren't critical of the protesters, especially after blocking traffic to the event, wearing KKK hoods inside the event, etc. People tend to forget that the campaigns pay to rent out these venues and thus it is considered a private event. I don't have any problems with peaceful protests and encourage them to be honest. I do have problems disrupting events inside the venue. It seems that the media is complicit in not investigating why these protests are seemingly more and more organized, which leads me to believe that the far left is triggering these just to keep it in the news.

There are many on this board that think all trump supporters are idiots, etc...but they have the same mentality as the elites who think that they know better than all of the people voting. Well people are pi**ed with the establishment...get used to it. There have been elections in the past just as bad...(see Jackson and others).

You really don't think that Trump has created this controversy himself by his words? Are we supposed to take him literally or not?

Why does he get a pass for saying things no other politician could get away with?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Homer,

It is unlike you to so carelessly employ absolutes. I think you have TDS.

[homersapien 11,812]

Homer,

It is unlike you to so carelessly employ absolutes. I think you have TDS.

Can you please explain what you are referring to?

And seriously, TDS? I guess that applies to me and just about every other thinking person in the country, huh? Maybe it's actually calling a spade a spade.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Maybe but, I think that ignores the fact that his rhetoric is not that much different from others and, it lacks the analysis of any, and all, other possible reasons for attacks against him.

Do you see ANY duality in threads blaming the GOP, the "chickens coming home to roost" and, those that further the idea that Trump himself is the problem?

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

It is interesting about all of these negative reports continuing on trump and how bad he will be. You rarely see anything this negative about H or Sanders or even Cruz. Could it be that the media along with the donor class are afraid that if trump gets the nod to compete in the general election that he will win? It sure seems that way. We constantly hear about protesters at his events but the media and pundits aren't critical of the protesters, especially after blocking traffic to the event, wearing KKK hoods inside the event, etc. People tend to forget that the campaigns pay to rent out these venues and thus it is considered a private event. I don't have any problems with peaceful protests and encourage them to be honest. I do have problems disrupting events inside the venue. It seems that the media is complicit in not investigating why these protests are seemingly more and more organized, which leads me to believe that the far left is triggering these just to keep it in the news.

There are many on this board that think all trump supporters are idiots, etc...but they have the same mentality as the elites who think that they know better than all of the people voting. Well people are pi**ed with the establishment...get used to it. There have been elections in the past just as bad...(see Jackson and others).

You really don't think that Trump has created this controversy himself by his words? I really don't care what he has to say. I don't support him. Also, he says things others say all the time but too many people are so PC that they jump at it. You don't think H calling Republicans the enemy is also of concern? Are we supposed to take her literally? Are we supposed to take him literally or not? How many politicians do you take literally? All of them? If so I am sure that I can find things that pols have said and you would say that they didn't mean that literally so why should I do the same for Trump? But better yet, why do you take things literally from Trump vice other pols?

Why does he get a pass for saying things no other politician could get away with? He isn't getting a pass but you have to admit that there is more bias against him in the media and protesters at his rallies are getting a pass. Seriously no one is outraged by the female protester wearing a KKK hood? I am appalled and more appalled that other protesters didn't call her on it. That is just flat out wrong but I don't see much media attention calling her out on it. I have seen plenty of times where the black male attacks a protester but not much in coverage of the women in the hood. You haven't mentioned it either which for someone who pretends to be above the fray and for calling trump a racist but yet are ok with that protester wearing a hood is a little suspect.

[homersapien 11,812]

Maybe but, I think that ignores the fact that his rhetoric is not that much different from others and, it lacks the analysis of any, and all, other possible reasons for attacks against him.

Do you see ANY duality in threads blaming the GOP, the "chickens coming home to roost" and, those that further the idea that Trump himself is the problem?

That's just BS.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Maybe but, I think that ignores the fact that his rhetoric is not that much different from others and, it lacks the analysis of any, and all, other possible reasons for attacks against him.

Do you see ANY duality in threads blaming the GOP, the "chickens coming home to roost" and, those that further the idea that Trump himself is the problem?

That's just BS.

Because you got nailed.

[homersapien 11,812]

It is interesting about all of these negative reports continuing on trump and how bad he will be. You rarely see anything this negative about H or Sanders or even Cruz. Could it be that the media along with the donor class are afraid that if trump gets the nod to compete in the general election that he will win? It sure seems that way. We constantly hear about protesters at his events but the media and pundits aren't critical of the protesters, especially after blocking traffic to the event, wearing KKK hoods inside the event, etc. People tend to forget that the campaigns pay to rent out these venues and thus it is considered a private event. I don't have any problems with peaceful protests and encourage them to be honest. I do have problems disrupting events inside the venue. It seems that the media is complicit in not investigating why these protests are seemingly more and more organized, which leads me to believe that the far left is triggering these just to keep it in the news.

There are many on this board that think all trump supporters are idiots, etc...but they have the same mentality as the elites who think that they know better than all of the people voting. Well people are pi**ed with the establishment...get used to it. There have been elections in the past just as bad...(see Jackson and others).

You really don't think that Trump has created this controversy himself by his words? I really don't care what he has to say. I don't support him. Also, he says things others say all the time but too many people are so PC that they jump at it. You don't think H calling Republicans the enemy is also of concern? Are we supposed to take her literally? Are we supposed to take him literally or not? How many politicians do you take literally? All of them? If so I am sure that I can find things that pols have said and you would say that they didn't mean that literally so why should I do the same for Trump? But better yet, why do you take things literally from Trump vice other pols?

Why does he get a pass for saying things no other politician could get away with? He isn't getting a pass but you have to admit that there is more bias against him in the media and protesters at his rallies are getting a pass. Seriously no one is outraged by the female protester wearing a KKK hood? I am appalled and more appalled that other protesters didn't call her on it. That is just flat out wrong but I don't see much media attention calling her out on it. I have seen plenty of times where the black male attacks a protester but not much in coverage of the women in the hood. You haven't mentioned it either which for someone who pretends to be above the fray and for calling trump a racist but yet are ok with that protester wearing a hood is a little suspect.

You are worried about a protester wearing a KKK hood and Trumps comments about women and directed to women don't bother you? (For just one example.)

Man, that's some seriously biased perception.

[homersapien 11,812]

Maybe but, I think that ignores the fact that his rhetoric is not that much different from others and, it lacks the analysis of any, and all, other possible reasons for attacks against him.

Do you see ANY duality in threads blaming the GOP, the "chickens coming home to roost" and, those that further the idea that Trump himself is the problem?

That's just BS.

Because you got nailed.

Do you contend his rhetoric is not any different from others? Do you really want to pursue that?

[japantiger 4,077]

Good lord...I've watched now for about a month on all the Trump is dangerous, Trump is Hitler, Trump is "pick your pejorative" bull**** being posted out here. You know, I keep checking the paper and I've yet to see anyone killed or hurt from any action that Donald Trump has taken. If he was so damn dangerous, the emergency rooms should be full and the dead should be littering the streets. Not there...kind of like all the deaths created by open carry...well, not really any deaths...but there's plenty of imagined danger.....

When your whole platform is bankrupt, you can't compete on real ideas... you have to create an imagined boogey-man....all this imagined danger from a guy who's been running a business (a rather large business) for the last 40 years and raising kids....and doing a pretty good job of it from the public record. How about you guys come up with something real and drop all the imagined bull****. And for the records, Trump didn't vote to send Americans to Iraq, her Majesty did...Trump didn't get his ambassador killed, her majesty did, Trump didn't blow up a large part of North Afrika with a failed policy, her majesty did...Trump didn't willfully mishandle classified info and lie about it, her majesty did...I don't think I need to go on. If you're looking for danger, how about picking an actual danger instead of all this imagined bull**** you keep spewing. This is a replay of all the things said about Reagan; that really worked well for you guys then...let me see, was it 49 of 50 states went to Reagan? The dangerous cowboy, the boob, the actor? Oh, yeah, the President.

If you actual ideas/thougths/ACTUAL arguments and you want to contrast real/actual policy choices (not imagined boogey men), put them out here and let's compare point by point...but please, drop this inane horse***t. And by the way, if you want to know Trumps policies, he puts them on his website....I know that is a challenge for some of you since you probably can't get internet in your Trump proof panic rooms....

[homersapien 11,812]

Good lord...I've watched now for about a month on all the Trump is dangerous, Trump is Hitler, Trump is "pick your pejorative" bull**** being posted out here. You know, I keep checking the paper and I've yet to see anyone killed or hurt from any action that Donald Trump has taken. If he was so damn dangerous, the emergency rooms should be full and the dead should be littering the streets. Not there...kind of like all the deaths created by open carry...well, not really any deaths...but there's plenty of imagined danger.....

When your whole platform is bankrupt, you can't compete on real ideas... you have to create an imagined boogey-man....all this imagined danger from a guy who's been running a business (a rather large business) for the last 40 years and raising kids....and doing a pretty good job of it from the public record. How about you guys come up with something real and drop all the imagined bull****. And for the records, Trump didn't vote to send Americans to Iraq, her Majesty did...Trump didn't get his ambassador killed, her majesty did, Trump didn't blow up a large part of North Afrika with a failed policy, her majesty did...Trump didn't willfully mishandle classified info and lie about it, her majesty did...I don't think I need to go on. If you're looking for danger, how about picking an actual danger instead of all this imagined bull**** you keep spewing. This is a replay of all the things said about Reagan; that really worked well for you guys then...let me see, was it 49 of 50 states went to Reagan? The dangerous cowboy, the boob, the actor? Oh, yeah, the President.

If you actual ideas/thougths/ACTUAL arguments and you want to contrast real/actual policy choices (not imagined boogey men), put them out here and let's compare point by point...but please, drop this inane horse***t. And by the way, if you want to know Trumps policies, he puts them on his website....I know that is a challenge for some of you since you probably can't get internet in your Trump proof panic rooms....

OK, you go first. How about listing Trumps policies on various subjects. (I suggest you date them.)

You can start with the decision of how to allocate funds for the impending requirement to refurbish/renew the nuclear deterrent triad.

[japantiger 4,077]

Good lord...I've watched now for about a month on all the Trump is dangerous, Trump is Hitler, Trump is "pick your pejorative" bull**** being posted out here. You know, I keep checking the paper and I've yet to see anyone killed or hurt from any action that Donald Trump has taken. If he was so damn dangerous, the emergency rooms should be full and the dead should be littering the streets. Not there...kind of like all the deaths created by open carry...well, not really any deaths...but there's plenty of imagined danger.....

When your whole platform is bankrupt, you can't compete on real ideas... you have to create an imagined boogey-man....all this imagined danger from a guy who's been running a business (a rather large business) for the last 40 years and raising kids....and doing a pretty good job of it from the public record. How about you guys come up with something real and drop all the imagined bull****. And for the records, Trump didn't vote to send Americans to Iraq, her Majesty did...Trump didn't get his ambassador killed, her majesty did, Trump didn't blow up a large part of North Afrika with a failed policy, her majesty did...Trump didn't willfully mishandle classified info and lie about it, her majesty did...I don't think I need to go on. If you're looking for danger, how about picking an actual danger instead of all this imagined bull**** you keep spewing. This is a replay of all the things said about Reagan; that really worked well for you guys then...let me see, was it 49 of 50 states went to Reagan? The dangerous cowboy, the boob, the actor? Oh, yeah, the President.

If you actual ideas/thougths/ACTUAL arguments and you want to contrast real/actual policy choices (not imagined boogey men), put them out here and let's compare point by point...but please, drop this inane horse***t. And by the way, if you want to know Trumps policies, he puts them on his website....I know that is a challenge for some of you since you probably can't get internet in your Trump proof panic rooms....

OK, you go first. How about listing Trumps policies on various subjects. You can start with the decision of how to allocate funds for the refurbishing or renewing the nuclear deterrent triad.

(I suggest you date them.)

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2d0rci/key-and-peele-awkward-conversation

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

It is interesting about all of these negative reports continuing on trump and how bad he will be. You rarely see anything this negative about H or Sanders or even Cruz. Could it be that the media along with the donor class are afraid that if trump gets the nod to compete in the general election that he will win? It sure seems that way. We constantly hear about protesters at his events but the media and pundits aren't critical of the protesters, especially after blocking traffic to the event, wearing KKK hoods inside the event, etc. People tend to forget that the campaigns pay to rent out these venues and thus it is considered a private event. I don't have any problems with peaceful protests and encourage them to be honest. I do have problems disrupting events inside the venue. It seems that the media is complicit in not investigating why these protests are seemingly more and more organized, which leads me to believe that the far left is triggering these just to keep it in the news.

There are many on this board that think all trump supporters are idiots, etc...but they have the same mentality as the elites who think that they know better than all of the people voting. Well people are pi**ed with the establishment...get used to it. There have been elections in the past just as bad...(see Jackson and others).

You really don't think that Trump has created this controversy himself by his words? I really don't care what he has to say. I don't support him. Also, he says things others say all the time but too many people are so PC that they jump at it. You don't think H calling Republicans the enemy is also of concern? Are we supposed to take her literally? Are we supposed to take him literally or not? How many politicians do you take literally? All of them? If so I am sure that I can find things that pols have said and you would say that they didn't mean that literally so why should I do the same for Trump? But better yet, why do you take things literally from Trump vice other pols?

Why does he get a pass for saying things no other politician could get away with? He isn't getting a pass but you have to admit that there is more bias against him in the media and protesters at his rallies are getting a pass. Seriously no one is outraged by the female protester wearing a KKK hood? I am appalled and more appalled that other protesters didn't call her on it. That is just flat out wrong but I don't see much media attention calling her out on it. I have seen plenty of times where the black male attacks a protester but not much in coverage of the women in the hood. You haven't mentioned it either which for someone who pretends to be above the fray and for calling trump a racist but yet are ok with that protester wearing a hood is a little suspect.

You are worried about a protester wearing a KKK hood and Trumps comments about women and directed to women don't bother you? (For just one example.)

Man, that's some seriously biased perception.

I know it frightens you homer but I don't care what trump has to say. If people don't like what he says don't vote for him. Simple solution. And Yeah, I have a huge problem with people wearing the KKK hoods, both the real KKK folks and the protesters.

Admit it Trump is in your HEAD!

Your pretense on these forums is that you know better than the rest of us and yet you are wigged out by trump and people who don't care what he says. You tried to pull the racist card on him in another thread but couldn't provide one thing except conjecture. You also stated that only racist support trump until I proved you wrong. You also said racists didn't support Obama until I proved you wrong.

If you are so appalled at people not caring what trump or other candidates say may I suggest taking a break from the political forums. But he is in your head really bad....

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"That's just BS."

I certainly cannot argue with that sort of factual information. Very impressive. The details and logical construction of your argument are just too strong.

[homersapien 11,812]

It is interesting about all of these negative reports continuing on trump and how bad he will be. You rarely see anything this negative about H or Sanders or even Cruz. Could it be that the media along with the donor class are afraid that if trump gets the nod to compete in the general election that he will win? It sure seems that way. We constantly hear about protesters at his events but the media and pundits aren't critical of the protesters, especially after blocking traffic to the event, wearing KKK hoods inside the event, etc. People tend to forget that the campaigns pay to rent out these venues and thus it is considered a private event. I don't have any problems with peaceful protests and encourage them to be honest. I do have problems disrupting events inside the venue. It seems that the media is complicit in not investigating why these protests are seemingly more and more organized, which leads me to believe that the far left is triggering these just to keep it in the news.

There are many on this board that think all trump supporters are idiots, etc...but they have the same mentality as the elites who think that they know better than all of the people voting. Well people are pi**ed with the establishment...get used to it. There have been elections in the past just as bad...(see Jackson and others).

You really don't think that Trump has created this controversy himself by his words? I really don't care what he has to say. I don't support him. Also, he says things others say all the time but too many people are so PC that they jump at it. You don't think H calling Republicans the enemy is also of concern? Are we supposed to take her literally? Are we supposed to take him literally or not? How many politicians do you take literally? All of them? If so I am sure that I can find things that pols have said and you would say that they didn't mean that literally so why should I do the same for Trump? But better yet, why do you take things literally from Trump vice other pols?

Why does he get a pass for saying things no other politician could get away with? He isn't getting a pass but you have to admit that there is more bias against him in the media and protesters at his rallies are getting a pass. Seriously no one is outraged by the female protester wearing a KKK hood? I am appalled and more appalled that other protesters didn't call her on it. That is just flat out wrong but I don't see much media attention calling her out on it. I have seen plenty of times where the black male attacks a protester but not much in coverage of the women in the hood. You haven't mentioned it either which for someone who pretends to be above the fray and for calling trump a racist but yet are ok with that protester wearing a hood is a little suspect.

You are worried about a protester wearing a KKK hood and Trumps comments about women and directed to women don't bother you? (For just one example.)

Man, that's some seriously biased perception.

I know it frightens you homer but I don't care what trump has to say. If people don't like what he says don't vote for him. Simple solution. And Yeah, I have a huge problem with people wearing the KKK hoods, both the real KKK folks and the protesters.

Admit it Trump is in your HEAD!

Your pretense on these forums is that you know better than the rest of us and yet you are wigged out by trump and people who don't care what he says. You tried to pull the racist card on him in another thread but couldn't provide one thing except conjecture. You also stated that only racist support trump until I proved you wrong. You also said racists didn't support Obama until I proved you wrong.

If you are so appalled at people not caring what trump or other candidates say may I suggest taking a break from the political forums. But he is in your head really bad....

Yeah, it's just me. Everyone else thinks he's a reasonable candidate. :-\

[homersapien 11,812]

"That's just BS."

I certainly cannot argue with that sort of factual information. Very impressive. The details and logical construction of your argument are just too strong.

It's more than adequate for anyone who claims his rhetoric is no different from the rest of the field and actually believes it.

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/550112/donald-trump-quotes.html

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"It's more than adequate for anyone who claims his rhetoric is no different from the rest of the field and actually believes it."

http://www.marieclai...ump-quotes.html

LOL!!! I commend you on the use of British tabloid "journalism". Come on Homer! Do you really believe Trump is more dangerous than an uncompromising, phony, self-serving ideologue?

[Wrights_Mill_Road 2]

we get it. the left and right establishment don't like trump.

from just reading what was posted here (not the link) there are some issues there. trump has, on multiple occasions, says he is willing to deal with democrats and republicans. any time a president signs an executive order, that is a form of authoritarianism. for many, many years the presidential candidates, including the president, are paid for by people like the koch brothers and george soros. that is not necessarily the president being authoritarian but he is, for lack of better words, "controlled" by the powers that be.

every poll, every major news outlet, etc... are mouthpieces for these establishment figures who want to maintain their status and use such media to influence public thought and opinions. the article above is no exception. either you posted this b/c this article has "told you how to think" or you are simply seeking out opinions of others that align with yours in order to reaffirm your opinions, neither of which enrich you with perspective. it has been my personal experience that people who take a fairly hardened (read:not 100% but pretty close) partisan stance on one side or the other do not have what i would consider a broad perspective and as a result, have not challenged their own beliefs.

left vs right is an imaginary farce meant to divide us and keep us disagreeing with each other, each side taking one part of an issue and not painting a full picture with it. it is my belief that almost all of us want the same end result but we are divided, politically, about how to get there and that is used as the driving issue to divide us. a great example is the poor. again, without absolutes, some of the left's narrative is usually that the poor are victims/down on their luck/innocent and need help while some of the right's narrative is that they are lazy/scammers/sorry people. in fact, both are right. there are people who genuinely need our help and there are people who are pretty crappy and are there because of their own crappy decisions.

in closing, again, i believe we all want the same things such as stop foreign wars, diminish poverty, our right to choose what is best for us, safety, education, etc... these things will never come to pass until we are free from the power brokers, like koch and soros. a dachshund will not win a fight against a rottweiler. it will take an even bigger, stronger rottweiler to win. the power brokers can only be defeated by someone with as much, or even more power. trump could be a bad president or he could be a great one. we don't know. what we do know is that he is the only candidate who is not controlled by the power brokers and is the only candidate who potentially could break up their power structure. if he did, maybe one day we could all be happy because after all, we all want the same thing.

[wdefromtx 3,312]

we get it. the left and right establishment don't like trump.

from just reading what was posted here (not the link) there are some issues there. trump has, on multiple occasions, says he is willing to deal with democrats and republicans. any time a president signs an executive order, that is a form of authoritarianism. for many, many years the presidential candidates, including the president, are paid for by people like the koch brothers and george soros. that is not necessarily the president being authoritarian but he is, for lack of better words, "controlled" by the powers that be.

every poll, every major news outlet, etc... are mouthpieces for these establishment figures who want to maintain their status and use such media to influence public thought and opinions. the article above is no exception. either you posted this b/c this article has "told you how to think" or you are simply seeking out opinions of others that align with yours in order to reaffirm your opinions, neither of which enrich you with perspective. it has been my personal experience that people who take a fairly hardened (read:not 100% but pretty close) partisan stance on one side or the other do not have what i would consider a broad perspective and as a result, have not challenged their own beliefs.

left vs right is an imaginary farce meant to divide us and keep us disagreeing with each other, each side taking one part of an issue and not painting a full picture with it. it is my belief that almost all of us want the same end result but we are divided, politically, about how to get there and that is used as the driving issue to divide us. a great example is the poor. again, without absolutes, some of the left's narrative is usually that the poor are victims/down on their luck/innocent and need help while some of the right's narrative is that they are lazy/scammers/sorry people. in fact, both are right. there are people who genuinely need our help and there are people who are pretty crappy and are there because of their own crappy decisions.

in closing, again, i believe we all want the same things such as stop foreign wars, diminish poverty, our right to choose what is best for us, safety, education, etc... these things will never come to pass until we are free from the power brokers, like koch and soros. a dachshund will not win a fight against a rottweiler. it will take an even bigger, stronger rottweiler to win. the power brokers can only be defeated by someone with as much, or even more power. trump could be a bad president or he could be a great one. we don't know. what we do know is that he is the only candidate who is not controlled by the power brokers and is the only candidate who potentially could break up their power structure. if he did, maybe one day we could all be happy because after all, we all want the same thing.

Could not have said it better myself!!!

[homersapien 11,812]

"It's more than adequate for anyone who claims his rhetoric is no different from the rest of the field and actually believes it."

http://www.marieclai...ump-quotes.html

LOL!!! I commend you on the use of British tabloid "journalism". Come on Homer! Do you really believe Trump is more dangerous than an uncompromising, phony, self-serving ideologue?

Are you disputing the quotes?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Really Homer? This is what you have become? I am disappointed.