I am discouraged that the most starred comment in this thread is just criticism of a person’s attractiveness. I guess we really are in Trump’s world now.

MLK Jr would agree

However, that somewhat backfired because it made me realize how terrible I was being treated and how terrible my job was at the time.

Yes, it is hyperbolic

Someone just needs to convince Trump to invest in companies that focus on renewable energy.

Now we just have to hope he doesn’t get to add two new justices to the NC Supreme Court without any input from voters.

I just did bacon. It was glorious. I would like to see regular meats (chicken, steak, etc...) done with bacon for added flavor.

However, it does lead many to think that he was willing to “traffic” in bigotry when he was old enough to know better, in order to get where he is politically, and that his Mea Culpas came a bit too late.

Kind of a condescending prick, aren’t you?

What other way can we effectively “message” those policies other than going out there and talking to them in person?

Okay. So this is where I’m at. From my perspective, as long as they didn’t actively fight Sander’s campaign, I think it’s fine, and—as far as I can tell—there’s no real evidence of it. I do not think the Primary was rigged.

I obviously haven’t read every single email. I’m looking for you to provide me the evidence, because the burden of proof is on you to prove guilt (it is not on me to prove innocence). If you cannot provide emails, or other evidence, that prove collusion, then there’s no reason for me to believe it.

Okay... I’ll try to explain again. Please point out where I fail to make sense.

I don’t know if you’re a troll or not, but I responded with real concerns and tried having a real conversation. Now you have nothing but to respond with ad hominem attacks.

Then respond to my concerns about your sources.

Also, calling me a “cultist” instead of having a real conversation with me, as I tried to do with my explanations of your shitty sources, makes it abundantly clear how blind you are to any other viewpoints.

You didn’t give me any real evidence. Everything you gave me was propaganda or speculation. Doesn’t matter what’s true, though, or if any evidence is presented; lock her up, amiright?

I agree that they were negotiated with long-term benefits, but what platform do you think would deal with the short-term difficulties better? Go look at Hillary’s policy page—she has plans for manufacturing to hard-hit areas, she has plans for poverty, she is pro-union, she has job training plans, she even adopted…

Maybe the issue is that Clinton had too many policies, and they were too nuanced and well-thought-out. She didn’t have any of those stupid one-liner policies (“Build a wall”, “free college”) that riled white people up. Her policies were from someone who actually wanted to govern effectively.

The Daily Mail has an agenda, and is overall a terrible source. Also the article reeks of misogyny, and the “committeewoman” is unnamed, plus offers absolutely no proof of anything.