Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic.

 

If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why?

If he had his way, trump will be president in less than six months. No more of his profoundly and proudly ignorant statements.

 

But why is it the obligation of the overwhelmingly strongest military in the world with crucial strategic positions at stake? I think that question sort of answers itself, and it's 'sacrilegious' if you have any understanding of what the us interests re NATO are.

You're taking it too literally - he's just saying they suck at what they do.

How do arrive at that interpretation from these words? And I quote "half of teachers are virtually illiterate."

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtually

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate

How do arrive at that interpretation from these words? And I quote "half of teachers are virtually illiterate."

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtually

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate

It's hyperbole but it's still an example of rauner being garbage.

 

It's hyperbole but it's still an example of rauner being garbage.

Sure, a poor choice of words at best and at worst another example of extreme arrogance, racism and overall lack of respect for working and middle class citizens.

How do arrive at that interpretation from these words? And I quote "half of teachers are virtually illiterate."

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtually

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate

 

You arrive at it because not everything is to be taken literally, especially when it comes to insults.

 

"Another walk? This pitcher couldn't hit the broad side of a barn!" doesn't indicate that you actually think the guy is THAT inaccurate.

 

Rauner is bashing the union, saying they'll resist evaluation because they suck - Half the managers can't even manage, half the teachers can't even read!

You arrive at it because not everything is to be taken literally, especially when it comes to insults.

 

"Another walk? This pitcher couldn't hit the broad side of a barn!" doesn't indicate that you actually think the guy is THAT inaccurate.

 

Rauner is bashing the union, saying they'll resist evaluation because they suck - Half the managers can't even manage, half the teachers can't even read!

Yea not so much. Yet another IL govenor unable to relate to the vast majority of people within this state and completely incapable of governing effectively. He's in way over his head right now and will continue to be embarrassed over the next two years, as if the first two weren't enough already. I'm embarrassed I voted for this clown.

Yea not so much. Yet another IL govenor unable to relate to the vast majority of people within this state and completely incapable of governing effectively. He's in way over his head right now and will continue to be embarrassed over the next two years, as if the first two weren't enough already. I'm embarrassed I voted for this clown.

 

Rauner has been governor for two years now?

Nice Photoshop

 

Nice Photoshop

 

Why would Americans of all people slob on Nazism balls? Hitler was going to f***ing wipe out the USA if given the chance.

 

Idiots.

Rauner has been governor for two years now?

Just about. Won the election in November 2014 and sworn in January 2015. Not like he's (or any other State legislators) going to do anything between now and November anyways so for all practical purposes yes 2 years.

Just about. Won the election in November 2014 and sworn in January 2015. Not like he's (or any other State legislators) going to do anything between now and November anyways so for all practical purposes yes 2 years.

 

Rauner is definitely one and done. He woke many Illinois' residents up as to what a governor looks like that doesn't know how to play the game.

Wonderful

I wonder what all of the Republicans who have been strongly pro trade deals like nafta for decades think about trump attacking all of these year deals.

Did Trump really just say depleted military? Did it really get a huge applause break?

 

Even if he's sincere in wanting to do all these things, there is no way it's going to happen. Republican or Democrat controlled House and / or Senate, doesn't matter.

Everyone goes on about the Hitler salute but Hillary has done them as well between this stupidity and the plagiarism one.. I swear people are getting dumber by the second.

Edited July 22, 20169 yr by EvilJester99

Everyone goes on about the Hitler salute but Hillary has done them as well between this stupidity and the plagiarism one.. I swear people are getting dumber by the second.

It's probably that she doesn't openly court authoritarianism and fascism I unno. What is dumb about the plagiarism?

 

 

 

It's probably that she doesn't openly court authoritarianism and fascism I unno. What is dumb about the plagiarism?

What's stupid about it the speech that was plagiarized was already plagiarized to begin with from Michelle Obama.. She copied Saul Alinsky.. Barack also copied Deval Patrick in 2008 speech. Plagiarism happens all the time in those speeches

Edited July 22, 20169 yr by EvilJester99

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/opinions/tru...gala/index.html

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-tr...--election.html

Fact checking Trump's speech

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07...region&_r=0

Ivanka's version of Trump nowhere to be found

Edited July 22, 20169 yr by caulfield12

Everyone goes on about the Hitler salute but Hillary has done them as well between this stupidity and the plagiarism one.. I swear people are getting dumber by the second.

 

Hmm I'll admit I don't pay much attention to politicians actions after speeches but it this a standard wave or something?

 

 

What's stupid about it the speech that was plagiarized was already plagiarized to begin with from Michelle Obama.. She copied Saul Alinsky.. Barack also copied Deval Patrick in 2008 speech. Plagiarism happens all the time in those speeches

First, no, she didn't. Please show us your hard hitting analysis of that.

 

Second, the difference is Obama stated when asked that Patrick told him to use those words.

 

Whereas the Trump campaign said "No no it's not plagiarism! Only 7%! No this is Hillary Clinton cutting down powerful women! Ok yeah we wrote down the passage

 

It's their response that's the story. That and m. Trump needing to steal the values expressed by Michelle Obama when Obama is ridiculously reviled by that crowd.

I heard Ivanka Trump gave a great speech last night (not surprised - everyone loves her, she's charismatic, not at all trash like Donald and Donald Jr.) but she was gaslighting. I saw pieces of it and she sounded like she was talking about some hypothetical liberal/Democratic candidate. Equal pay, family leave, subsidized childcare? Uh no, that's not Trump, that's Hillary Clinton you're thinking of.

 

Then after her sunny speech, her father took the mic from her and, well.

Edited July 22, 20169 yr by Ezio Auditore

That Trump speech was 90% fear mongering bulls***, but the parts he talked about NAFTA being an awful deal and factories closing in America is true.

 

Now I don't believe for one second that he actually cares about that stuff, but he is going to attack Clinton on that stuff. It will probably work pretty well.

That Trump speech was 90% fear mongering bulls***, but the parts he talked about NAFTA being an awful deal and factories closing in America is true.

 

Now I don't believe for one second that he actually cares about that stuff, but he is going to attack Clinton on that stuff. It will probably work pretty well.

That's the Democrats' Achilles heel.