Yzermandius19

Border security isn't racist. You can argue he went about it in a way he shouldn't have, but you don't attack that, no, you pretend it's racist. You're the boy who cried wolf, and you've lost all credibility, even when there is a kernel of good complaint against Trump, you have to overreach and torpedo your entire argument. Pick your battles better, pro tip.

Nope in yours. You can't point to a single example that proves your point, you just think you are a master mindreader, and can tell he's a racist bigot just by the way he talks, focusing on words instead of actions, AGAIN. It's like you are a parody of a Trump Hater, conjured up by some right wing troll, to demonize the left with a ridiculous strawman, but you actually believe this nonsense. You are better at swaying the minds of swing voters to vote for Trump, than any Trump supporter could ever dream of, that's how counter-productive your anti-Trump spiel is. If you think you are hurting Trump more than you are helping him with these spurious attacks, more wishful thinking.

Bigotry and racism are all in your head. The lying is baked in the cake of politics, Trump or no Trump. You have nothing, hence the grasping for straws. You focus on words and not actions, that is a huge mistake, and leads to grasping at straws. If you focused on actions, you'd have a much better case, but you focus on words, so your case is awful.

I don't attack Obama for telling lies that helped him politically, I save my ammo for more important shit. I know how to pick my battles, you grasp at straws to attack politicians you don't like, for shit every politician does. Acting like Hillary Clinton's lying is a huge deal, is an ineffective line of attack on Hillary Clinton too, same as it is in Donald Trump's case as well. I'm not using a double standard here, but you are. Your attempts to excuse your obvious double standard, by projecting that double standard on me, is flailing. If you think the best ammo you have for attacking any politician, is that they are lying hypocrite, than you don't have any good reason to hate on that politician, or you'd have much better material than that.

All politicians lie every day, stop acting this is new. I grade Presidents on a curve, not against saints who will never be elected President. I don't find Trump's lying to be particularly egregious and even if I did, it's still a weak argument when lying is baked into the cake.

Which is enough to win elections, so the tasty garbage serves a purpose. 60% of the states preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton was selling garbage too, but it wasn't as tasty outside of New York and California. All politicians sell garbage, pretending that Trump is unique in this regard, is just a poor line of attack.

Constantly going after him for lying, when that's what politicians do. Baked into the cake, and you act like that's your number one beef, step your game up.

Indeed, but you pick your battles with Trump very poorly, despite all the good material available to attack him for legit reasons, that's the funny part.

Wishful thinking can lead to faulty analysis, because you see what you want to see, instead of what actually is. Confirmation bias for the fail. Calling you out on your wishful thinking doesn't make me a fan of the far-right, nor does defending Trump from the dumbest attacks on him. Obvious demonizing strawman is obvious.

Wishful thinking is a helluva drug. As usual jumping the gun and assuming that politicians you don't like are doomed, sad.

Both Trudeau and Trump will be re-elected, both are a pretty sure thing.

Don't see any "real change" alternatives that have a chance to win. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Most of Hillary's supporters are religious too. /shrugs

Scheer is such a lightweight. Trudeau going to smash him despite this scandal, just watch him.

No it means that 51-56% disapprove, while 40-44% approve. His numbers at this point are fairly similar to Obama, who was re-elected. Just because only 40-44% approve according to polls doesn't mean you'll only get 40-44% of the vote, that's not how approval ratings work. You don't run against yourself, you run against an opponent, and the Democrat who wins the nomination isn't going to be a formidable opponent, so Trump is going to pull in a lot more 44% of the vote, bet that.

Ho being a figurehead making a speech, does not mean he was running things. Like I said, he wanted peaceful co-existence, as did Moscow, it was China pushing for the far more aggressive approach and their boy, Le Duan. In 1959, Le Duan is running the show, just because it takes another year for him to get a flashier title doesn't mean Ho was still large and in charge. You're problem here is you are confusing de jure, with de facto. Le Duan was de facto running the show, don't let Ho Chi Minh being the de jure leader confuse you.

Already said Ho Chi Minh was in charge during the rebellion against the French, no goalposts have been moved, your reading comprehension just isn't very good. That said, Vo Nguyen Giap deserves the lionshare of the credit for defeating the French, Indochinese Bonaparte right thur, Dien Bien Phu FTW. Churchill is the main villain of both world wars, and Le Duan is the main villain who fought America in Vietnam. Credit where credit is due, not credit to the scapegoats of mythical narratives that have no basis in fact.

You're free to misinterpret history as you see fit. I'll stick to what actually happened. Britain declared war on Germany, Germany did not declare war on Britain, and it was Churchill's fault both times. Le Duan was actually running things when the US entered the war, not Ho Chi Minh. That's what happened.

Japan fighting China is not a world war. Germany fighting Poland is not a world war. When the globe spanning empire enters the war, that's when it becomes a World War. Churchill is the biggest warmonger of the 20th Century, and the most overrated political leader of the 20th century. Britain declared war Germany in both World Wars, not the other way around. Britain started both World Wars, they just blame Germany as a scapegoat.

Declaring war on Poland isn't a World War, that's a mere continental war. The British Empire that spans the globe declaring war on Germany, that is a World War. Churchill started it to defend neutral Poland, just as he started WWI to defend neutral Belgium, before that, it was just going to be Franco-Prussian War Part Deux. Winston Churchill is the greatest warmonger of the 20th Century.

Actually that was Winston Churchill. He started WWII, not Adolf Hitler. Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

I am placing the blame where it belongs, on the dude actually running things, not the figurehead who opposed what the dude who was actually running chit was doing. If it was up to Ho Chi Minh, it would have been peaceful co-existence, but Le Duan wasn't about to let that happen, and Le Duan won, because he actually ran things, not Ho Chi Minh.

Le Duan was running things long before he officially took power, Ho Chi Minh was not running things at that point, despite his more impressive title. Ho Chi Minh was the figurehead, Le Duan and his Chinese backers are the villian here, not Ho Chi "Peaceful Co-existence" Minh and the Soviets.

Le Duan was running the show long before he officially took over. Ho Chi Minh wanted peaceful co-existence, it was Le Duan who said f*ck that, we're taking it all. Ho Chi Minh sided with the Soviets, Le Duan with the Chinese, and North Vietnam went the Chinese path, because Le Duan was the one actually running chit.

Le Duan started the war. Ho Chi Minh didn't want to fight America, he loved America, it was them who inspired him to overthrow the French.