Be specific (also, I don't see what's wrong with that way, it's not perfect, but no way of measuring truly is).
Because of Trump, we talk about the subject of radical Islamic terrorism every day, either directly or through addressing his person and his remarks about Muslims. After saying what he said, he got record numbers of 'incoming' from all the phony people and media who call everyone racist for criticizing Islam. Before Trump, Jeb Bush promised not to use the term 'anchor baby', but after Trumps surge in polls, he started using it.
Other than that, the spin of the discussion is entirely different now. At the moment, the media is starting to see Trump as the one with real solutions to radical Islamic terrorism (as opposed to Hillary or Bernie). Trump tells that Muslim countries don't respect us, and that needs to change. If it came to any other candidate, you would hear much softer talk. So yes, Trump has made the topic a big one, and changed the tone of it entirely.
Are you really asking the frain "why would someone want to be leader of their country?".
Are you really saying every other candidate is an angel? Why all this suspicion about Trump, but not about anyone else?
How can you say not you're not for-war, or that this is not "world police"? Have you thought about how many innocent lives America has killed against how many Mashriq has?
What chooses "immediate threats to safety"? Why isn't West-Provinz an immediate threat to safety? Why isn't America an immediate threat to safety?
First of all, Trump is not responsible for what GWB did. He cannot change it, ok? Secondly, innocent civilians are bound to die when ISIS is defeated, regardless if the US defeats it or Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc. Third, everybody agrees that ISIS needs to go, the US would not be acting without legitimacy. ISIS is an immediate threat to lots of countries.
That's what I was saying to you.
No. You were saying that Hillary was better than Trump or Obama, after which I corrected you.
I don't care if Trump is a crybaby, he doesn't get to illegalise everything that makes him cry. And this is BR, they don't do post things lightly like that.
If the media was constantly criticizing BLM and refusing to say anything negative about Trump, you would want to change that, wouldn't you. Ah, but then you are a crybaby.
The 1961 and 1981 are not today (and both of these are presidents - not candidates). I thought of some other more important assassinations, but didn't accept anything before 1930. Not even the most extremist Sanders or Trump supporters would be willing to kill their antichrists (punch them, yes, but not kill).
Trump is a controversial candidate that has very high likelihood of becoming president. Now would be the time to assassinate him, before he becomes president. It's unbelievable how you continue to minimize the issue. And don't compare him to Marco Rubio. Nobody cares about Rubio or his positions.
Trump is mostly controversial since he's, what best sums up to, rude and unpretentious.
Not by a long shot. If that were all, he would be laughed at. The real reason why lots of people hate him is that he is about to change the status quo big time. He is changing the discussion about radical Islamic terrorism, political correctness, illegal immigration to one that does not avoid the meat of the issue. He threatens the power of the GOP establishment and the mainstream media, and that's why they are both trying to make as many people as possible hate him with passion, and perhaps do something violent.
If security is aggressive, it's not security anymore. Now, yes, they've spent loads on guards, and this has helped answer the problem, so what are you actually whining about since the problem is very minimal?
If a violent person like DiMassimo gets so close to Trump that he can actually touch him, then security has not been good enough. And then the media makes him look like a hero. Totally not encouraging more of the same.
Trump does not have tomato allergies.
If the tomato has a stone in it, and it hits Trump in the right place, it could hospitalize or even kill him.
KKK: Advocates for Protestant whiteskin supremacy.
BLM: Advocates against racial inequality, especially in the legal and police system.
Now these are both just policies, but think of them as minimum standards for the members. All in the KKK are Protestant whiteskin supremacists, while there's hardly anyone who believes in blackskin supremacy in the BLM. They are definitely folk who advocate policies like affirmative action in the BLM, but that's not for blackskins only; and it's hardly white-skin.
LOL. So if the KKK changed its rhetoric to "there is a genocide against whites, we need to make sure that whites don't become a minority in their own countries" then they would have a legitimate cause? Then it would not be OK to say that they are supremacists?
Hitting someone is illegal, and I'm all for restraining them, not more violently than needed, if they hit someone. But throwing a tomato and shouting are the purest forms of free speech, why free speech was given as a right: not to give a monopoly on opinions and voices, and to be allowed to criticise or insult without persecution, but to protest. If Trump doesn't want to deal with these problems, that's ok, just make it a private talk, then, but if this is inviting anyone, than everyone has business there.
If you think that throwing tomatoes and telling lies about others is covered by free speech, then you need to educate yourself what free speech actually means. The Trump rallies are private events, and Trump cannot know in advance who is a thug and who is a good guy.
"Argue against me when I'm not listening". You know what voicing a different opinion or belief is, to someone who has a different opinion or belief? A debate; to try and, if not make it two-sided, then make it one-sided on two sides.
Haha, there is no 'argument' that BLM thugs make. They call Trump a racist, that's all. And then they shout so that others cannot hear what Trump says. Hardly an argument either. If you want to hear counterarguments to Trump, you can listen to Bernie or Hillary. BLM thugs can make their own private even and tell that Trump is a racist if they want, that's their freedom of speech. But blocking ambulances is not what freedom of speech means. They are very bad people and people have a right to be angry at them.
Media, of all organisations, are not dumb, not in marketing. They're not idiots, they've got statistic departments, they're good at demography and advertising, and if they really wanted Trump to not win, would stop talking to him, let him be another grumpy politic nerd.
So it's all a conspiracy. The media are conspiring to make Trump president!
