You're probably the minority in that respect. I agree that somebody should back stuff up every now and then but the other guy should be willing to take a serious consideration of the source.

Of all those sources that Datajunky for instance used to post the only thing that was convincing was his anti-fluoride stance, but he posted a bunch of tenuous stuff on freezing the pineal gland and babies with lower IQs than expected (which could be true but nobody has really done good studies on it) - what I found after a long enough time of research was that fluoride is not an essential micronutrient and can cause harm to people with compromised renal function. Where he saw a grand conspiracy effort between the aluminum industry and the federal government could have just been well-intentioned but misleading dental propaganda done before the science was really out yet.



I agree completely, the misuse of information is not the fault of whoever is arguing a stance, but that being said the onus of research should ultimately be up to whoever engages in sophistry, whether willing or unwilling. Credibility can and should be employed as a way to save time and effort.



I don't see HRC as being personally likeable and neither does anybody in her camp. A lot of people in Trump's camp say he makes a serious effort towards small talk and being friendly with his staff.

This post was edited by general_patton on Apr 26 2016 08:22am

In yet another move toward the general Trump is exciting 95% of the country by doing his part to send (no mojo)Lena Dunham, Whoopi Golderberg and arch nemesis Rosie O'Donnell to Canada

After the votes are counted tonight we will be one step closer to making America great again

in your professional opinion, do you think that donald trump would change the thought process / demeanor / perhaps replace some of the people who are pulling the strings?

I'm more focused on important issues right now like self-deportation by obnoxious celebrities.

It's one way Trump can defeat Clinton as it will be much harder for the first woman president to get conservative bobbleheads to threaten to self-deport (and not actually do it) than it was for the first black kenyan muslim President.

Your question sounds conspiratorially charged and I refuse to go down that rabbit hole with you.

god if someone gets sharpton to fuck off we might once again see healthy race relations in this country.

i felt i worded it as a way i would ask someone who is straight forward

i personally made up my mind immediately on donald trump (WAIT), simply because we know who he is, pure alphamale doesn't let ANYONE say shit~~ and doesn't need anyones money.. when money is how decisions are made. boom boom

THAT was my bottom line. He's not "PICKED". is how i feel.. know what I mean?

so theres the bottom line, which is already a no-brainer. build the wall, (i disagree with deportation unless they are from syra or a another desolate sands and been here a year or less [peace])

now

i add on to it with things i agree with. his competition cant even get a word in. he's the one and only choice.... in my opinion, of course, he's on the defense- not the offense like the current usA

and im sure someone is going to say "but we havent been on the offense for years!"

what are we doing? we are playing for the opposite team. we are on offense, just Shady

I don't watch much TV so I'm not sure what Sharpton and Jackson are up to these days.

Last time I heard from Jackson I think he was mumbling about castrating the President or something



I don't think having a lot of money and imitating silver back mountain gorillas makes you less susceptible to becoming or being corrupt

Trump exaggerates his wealth and everything about himself. Traits of a man that will be and probably has been involved in shady dealings that directly hurts those he pretends he represents and/or protects

He is no silverback is a seller of snake oil

i just want a level playing field, and this is as close as it gets

he's less likely to accept favors..

and imagine if someone who worked for him was accepting favors? benefiting a few people, other than the entire country.. they'd be fired. i wouldnt have that confidence with any other candidate- literally ever. we should all just hope he survives. i have a feeling youre voting for him as well; it's none of my business- but who do u have in mind?

The only sane choice for me is Clinton at this point. I have no loyalty to any candidate I vote based on the issues I care about and I try to inform myself as much as I can all the way up till the day I vote and make the decision then.

I give them all a chance at the beginning because ruling out a candidate without examining everything would be a betrayal to truth and to me that betrayal would make everything pointless.

Cruz does not share my beliefs on issues I find important and I believe he is the worst of the bunch.
Sanders is not a leader and did not stick to a fact/issue based campaign
Trump is inexperienced, unpredictable, and does not share my beliefs on many issues and has fueled is campaign with whistles and rhetoric I find to be dangerous and unacceptable
Kasich is eh but probably would not do as much damage as the above still doesn't align with me on issues

I have issues with Clinton but when it comes down to it you have to make a choice and from the choices we currently have I only see one serious candidate
Most of the Clinton hate isn't based in fact but bias and it doesn't benefit anyone when people argue over things that aren't actual things.

I am center left on some issues and center right on a few and to me it's not even a contest anymore.

I understand the frustration that goes into a Sanders and Trump vote. There is much more there than just Bernie Bros and racists/bigots but to me we still have to get things done and I don't believe we will be able to accomplish much of anything by voting in inexperienced/ineffective/incompetent people just because we are frustrated with the system.