GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Forty Two]

Buffoon? What has he done that qualifies him as that?

Seriously?! Is this going to be another of those debates? No thanks.

42 is right. Trump has no buffoon qualifications. He couln't even pass the grade

The Atheism Plus is strong with you two. Did you guys come over from Ratskep? That's their modus operandi too.

Look, it's a simple question. What do you think qualifies him as a buffoon. Maybe I agree with you.

I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way. I just like him better than Cruz or Rubio, his closest adversaries right now. Buffoon or not, I'd take him over them without any question.

[Forty Two]

He's not going to be happy with you two dissing Breitbart!

Actually, I have no trouble dissing Breitbart, they are politically partisan for sure. However, the points made are the points made, simply hand-waving that it was published on Breitbart is not an argument. Breitbart might say it's raining outside. The fact that they are Breitbart and are a conservative pundit site doesn't make the statement false, and isn't an argument.

That's why I put, right there in the question, that I was looking for counters to the arguments made and not just attacks on the source.

I'd rather read the markings on a truck tyre as it rolled over my head. If you think I'm giving those wastes of skin a single click you're quite mistaken. I'd rather click a button which activated electrodes connected to my nuts than help their site.

Well, that's the modern way, isn't it. Discourse has become avoidance, where people don't want to read what they might not like.

If you didn't want to click on there, you could have just had me cut and paste the content. Problem solved. But, then that's not the real problem is it?

Don't want to comment then don't comment. Who gives a shit? Someone else might.

I thought this was a thread for jokes? Seems I've been mislead by false advertising.

Oh, your comment about Breitbart was in jest? I stand corrected.

Yes, indeed, the thread is for discussions and predictions, but jokes too.

[laklak]

How many Marco Rubios does it take to change a light bulb?

None, Cubans get Mexicans to do it.

[Animavore]

Buffoon? What has he done that qualifies him as that?

Seriously?! Is this going to be another of those debates? No thanks.

42 is right. Trump has no buffoon qualifications. He couln't even pass the grade

The Atheism Plus is strong with you two. Did you guys come over from Ratskep? That's their modus operandi too.

Look, it's a simple question. What do you think qualifies him as a buffoon. Maybe I agree with you.

I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way. I just like him better than Cruz or Rubio, his closest adversaries right now. Buffoon or not, I'd take him over them without any question.

Again, this is supposed to be a thread for jokes according to the title. I wasn't expecting serious discussion. Just funny pics, video, and possibly ginger lolcats with bad comb overs.

[Forty Two]

Buffoon? What has he done that qualifies him as that?

Seriously?! Is this going to be another of those debates? No thanks.

42 is right. Trump has no buffoon qualifications. He couln't even pass the grade

The Atheism Plus is strong with you two. Did you guys come over from Ratskep? That's their modus operandi too.

Look, it's a simple question. What do you think qualifies him as a buffoon. Maybe I agree with you.

I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way. I just like him better than Cruz or Rubio, his closest adversaries right now. Buffoon or not, I'd take him over them without any question.

Again, this is supposed to be a thread for jokes according to the title. I wasn't expecting serious discussion. Just funny pics, video, and possibly ginger lolcats with bad comb overs.

So, you were joking about Breitbart? Or was that serious?

And, it's not JUST for jokes -- god you people can be tedious. Look at the fucking title -- DISCUSSION, JOKES AND PREDICTIONS. Those are three things. Nothing in the grammar suggests that the discussions and predictions had to be jokes. The title involves discussions, which can be serious or not, jokes (which are not), and predictions, which can be serious or not.

I asked a serious question. But, if you wanted to answer it with a joke, I would have thought anyone with a semblance of a sense of humor might have actually made a joke, instead of going off on a rant about how they wouldn't deign to give that sewer site a click.

[Svartalf]

Breitbart is a bad joke, but it's one.

[Animavore]

Seriously?! Is this going to be another of those debates? No thanks.

42 is right. Trump has no buffoon qualifications. He couln't even pass the grade

The Atheism Plus is strong with you two. Did you guys come over from Ratskep? That's their modus operandi too.

Look, it's a simple question. What do you think qualifies him as a buffoon. Maybe I agree with you.

I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way. I just like him better than Cruz or Rubio, his closest adversaries right now. Buffoon or not, I'd take him over them without any question.

Again, this is supposed to be a thread for jokes according to the title. I wasn't expecting serious discussion. Just funny pics, video, and possibly ginger lolcats with bad comb overs.

So, you were joking about Breitbart? Or was that serious?

And, it's not JUST for jokes -- god you people can be tedious. Look at the fucking title -- DISCUSSION, JOKES AND PREDICTIONS. Those are three things. Nothing in the grammar suggests that the discussions and predictions had to be jokes. The title involves discussions, which can be serious or not, jokes (which are not), and predictions, which can be serious or not.

I asked a serious question. But, if you wanted to answer it with a joke, I would have thought anyone with a semblance of a sense of humor might have actually made a joke, instead of going off on a rant about how they wouldn't deign to give that sewer site a click.

Why are you asking about Breitbart in response to a joke about Trump's buffoonery?

You're getting very wound up for a thread which opens up with silly memes.

[Forty Two]

I did ask about his buffoonery. I asked very specifically -- what has he done that qualifies him as a buffoon?

I'm not wound up in the least. I'm just laughing at you and Rev.

[Animavore]

I did ask about his buffoonery. I asked very specifically -- what has he done that qualifies him as a buffoon?

I'm not wound up in the least. I'm just laughing at you and Rev.

And I'm laughing at the fact you even have to ask that. I'm even suspicious as to why you need it spelt out. You're not stupid enough to not understand it, which make me wonder what type of 'gotcha' you're setting up.

I'm not playing into whatever little game it is you're playing.

[Forty Two]

I did ask about his buffoonery. I asked very specifically -- what has he done that qualifies him as a buffoon?

I'm not wound up in the least. I'm just laughing at you and Rev.

And I'm laughing at the fact you even have to ask that. I'm even suspicious as to why you need it spelt out. You're not stupid enough to not understand it, which make me wonder what type of 'gotcha' you're setting up.

I'm not playing into whatever little game it is you're playing.

So, it's not a joke? He really is a buffoon? What's the deal, Animavore? You keep shifting back and forth.

Don't want to answer - that's cool.

You're "suspicious?" What sort of nefarious plan could I have? You might give some reasons why you think he's a buffoon and I might, what? What evil plan might I be hatching with this information. For fuck's sake, man, it's a discussion thread about the GOP primaries, including discussions, jokes and predictions. Someone called him a buffoon, and I asked that person to give reasons why he's a buffoon. What in the world is the problem?

You don't want to answer - great. But, this whole thing of being suspicious about why someone would for the basis of another person's opinion is, well, decidedly Atheism Plus. Those folks always explored the motives of people engaging in discussion of issues and they love to waste time with back and forth about people's motives and intent in discussing issues.

but, please - let's just leave it there. I asked a simple question - not directed at you -- and you don't want to answer it because you think there may be some "gotcha" waiting in your reasons why you think Trump is a buffoon. oooooooookay...... lol

[Animavore]

I'm not shifting back and forth at all. I made a joke about him being a buffoon but also think he is a buffoon. I made a joke about Breitbart being an open sewer which reflects how I feel about them. You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. As if a joke should reflect the opposite of how I feel. That when I say a buffoon related joke about Trump it means I don't actually think he's a buffoon.

I don't get that.

[Forty Two]

Oh, o.k. good - so, I just asked what makes Trump a buffoon.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive -- the only think I was interested in was (a) why someone who thinks Trump is a buffoon thinks he is a buffoon, and (b) if anyone had any refutations for the points they listed as reasons to support Trump.

Since this is a thread about the GOP Primaries/Caucuses: Discussions, Jokes and Predictions, i figured asking someone for the reasons why they hold the positions they hold regarding a candidate in the GOP Primaries/Caucuses might be relevant and interesting to discuss.

You prefer to discuss other issues, like whether you were joking, or not. Who cares? Like you said, a joke may be a joke and you may really hold the position you jokingly stated. The question still stands -- why is he a buffoon and do you have any refutations for the points made in the Breitbart article.

I'll save you some time -- if you don't want to answer, or if you prefer to go on about your suspicions about my master plan to "getcha" when you explain your political beliefs - or some such shite, then I'm done with this line of discussion with you and we can move on.

[Animavore]

Fine. I'll answer when I get home. I'm on a bus and can't pull sources. Though I can see just looking at today's news alone reasons.
Breitbart you'll have to copy paste. I was deadly serious about that part.

[Forty Two]

If Trump takes these first three primaries, there will likely be little anyone can do to stop him. http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum ... 1453978800

[Svartalf]

that's still a bif if, but if he does, that will show how degraded the GOP has grown.
between the religious extremists, the tea party and voting for sheer buffoons (yeah, I do mean reagan and bush jr as well), there's simply no room left for reasonable conservatives, the kind that put the likes of Eisenhower in the White House.