(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race.

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:  By my standards the answer is no. 

Can you elaborate on that a little? What are your standards?

(10-22-2024, 11:05 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:  By my standards the answer is no. 

Can you elaborate on that a little? What are your standards?

Corruption is completely antithetical to democracy. America is a crony capitalist state, the primary attribute of which is corruption. In that sort of environment a clean election is a virtual impossibility. Legitimacy is determined by clout, not honor.

Crony capitalism is de facto fascism. The only way we could have legitimate democracy would be to completely separate corporation and state. Obviously this is a moot point unless people understand and truly desire democracy, which is unlikely because it's a philosophical concept that cannot be understood by reading a dictionary. We're much too busy checking our social media accounts and consuming entertainment. Ice cream is infinitely preferable to philosophy.

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote: Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

The “prevailing standards in American politics…”. So you’re saying by current standards Biden won (in the U.S.—but not by your standards) and only by current standards in the U.S.  Did Trump win legitimately in 2016 by your standards and prevailing standards then? How about Reagan? I’m wondering when exactly you think the “standards” weren’t corrupt (by your standards—and “prevailing standards”)? If ever?

(10-22-2024, 04:38 PM)username Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote: And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

The “prevailing standards in American politics…”. So you’re saying by current standards Biden won (in the U.S.—but not by your standards) and only by current standards in the U.S.  Did Trump win legitimately in 2016 by your standards and prevailing standards then? How about Reagan? I’m wondering when exactly you think the “standards” weren’t corrupt (by your standards—and “prevailing standards”)? If ever?

I don't know of an election outcome that I would consider to be legitimate. How much cheating should be considered acceptable? If we're talking about maintaining democracy the answer has to be the least amount that is humanly possible, because something like corruption is either growing or in decline, there is no in-between. Vigilance has to constantly be maintained, just as weeds have to consistently be weeded. That may sound daunting but once it becomes ingrained nature it's akin to maintaining personal health.

(10-22-2024, 07:36 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 04:38 PM)username Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote: Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

The “prevailing standards in American politics…”. So you’re saying by current standards Biden won (in the U.S.—but not by your standards) and only by current standards in the U.S.  Did Trump win legitimately in 2016 by your standards and prevailing standards then? How about Reagan? I’m wondering when exactly you think the “standards” weren’t corrupt (by your standards—and “prevailing standards”)? If ever?

I don't know of an election outcome that I would consider to be legitimate. How much cheating should be considered acceptable? If we're talking about maintaining democracy the answer has to be the least amount that is humanly possible, because something like corruption is either growing or in decline, there is no in-between. Vigilance has to constantly be maintained, just as weeds have to consistently be weeded. That may sound daunting but once it becomes ingrained nature it's akin to maintaining personal health.

I need to work on trimming quotes. Regardless though, u dodged my question. Let me make it more simple: was there EVER a time that you trusted U.S. elections (and why limit it to POTUS? The election process in general). Or do you think all elections over the last decades/centuries are at best questionable if not illegitimate because you think that some amount of cheating affected the outcome of the election(s)?

Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

Isn’t that the job of a semi-united party? How the Republicans got Nixon to resign? A bumper sticker I saw one time:

OMGWTFGOP?

Fitting.

(10-22-2024, 09:09 PM)username Wrote: Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

You're forgetting that Trump dropped his hat in the ring in the wake of the Tea Party movement, which had greatly weakened the Republican leadership. They hate Trump because he feeds off of the disaffection many rank and file Republicans feel towards the leadership. I'm guessing that most of the Republicans that do speak out against him are from blue and purple states. You're also forgetting that the Democratic Party sucks dead donkey dick. If it weren't for their radical policies in support of illegal aliens, rainbows and unicorns, lockdowns, etc., Republicans would have a hard time getting elected as dog catchers.

Shame on U.

(10-23-2024, 09:51 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 09:09 PM)username Wrote: Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

You're forgetting that Trump dropped his hat in the ring in the wake of the Tea Party movement, which had greatly weakened the Republican leadership. They hate Trump because he feeds off of the disaffection many rank and file Republicans feel towards the leadership. I'm guessing that most of the Republicans that do speak out against him are from blue and purple states. You're also forgetting that the Democratic Party sucks dead donkey dick. If it weren't for their radical policies in support of illegal aliens, rainbows and unicorns, lockdowns, etc., Republicans would have a hard time getting elected as dog catchers.

Shame on U.

I’m not forgetting…there are extremists in all organized groups (be it politics or religion). I’d love to wish away Bernie Sanders almost as much as I’d like to wish away McConnell and Marjorie Taylor…I dislike them all. But never in our country have so many prominent party members (Republicans) members of the military (who typically remain apolitical) and former staff members come out against the candidate and straight up called him a fascist, unhinged, unfit leader to have that basically IGNORED or swept aside by the rest of the elected members of their party. Democrats may suck donkey dick but there’s no way the members of the house and senate would allow someone so morally bankrupt and criminal and a corrupt liar to run as their candidate (and kiss his ring in the process). Not today anyway. The GOP is a hot mess and if Trump wins this election (or loses but yet again claims he won), the Republicans who are enabling him absolutely shouldn’t ever be elected again as dog catchers or anything else. I hope history roasts their memories/failure to serve the country.

Mark Halperin claims he's been pitched a story that, if true, would end trump's campaign. Pfft. I don't think there is anything out there that could force trump out. After 9 years I believe he was right when he said he could shoot someone and he wouldn't lose any voters.

trump has disparaged a fuck ton of people, some of who hold him close--Ted Cruz for example, trump compared his wife to a dog and claimed his father was a murderer. Ted still fluffs trump. Lindsay Graham once famously said "if we nominate trump we will get destroyed and we will deserve it". Lindsay still fluffs trump too. I could go on, there are many such stories. They have no dignity, no honor.

It's my fervent hope that trump loses. I know he's going to start his shit again. There is no one, and I mean no one, who cries like that bitch and he will be wailing.

(10-23-2024, 10:43 AM)username Wrote:

(10-23-2024, 09:51 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 09:09 PM)username Wrote: Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

You're forgetting that Trump dropped his hat in the ring in the wake of the Tea Party movement, which had greatly weakened the Republican leadership. They hate Trump because he feeds off of the disaffection many rank and file Republicans feel towards the leadership. I'm guessing that most of the Republicans that do speak out against him are from blue and purple states. You're also forgetting that the Democratic Party sucks dead donkey dick. If it weren't for their radical policies in support of illegal aliens, rainbows and unicorns, lockdowns, etc., Republicans would have a hard time getting elected as dog catchers.

Shame on U.

But never in our country have so many prominent party members (Republicans) members of the military (who typically remain apolitical) and former staff members come out against the candidate and straight up called him a fascist, unhinged, unfit leader to have that basically IGNORED or swept aside by the rest of the elected members of their party...

None of those people have a pot to piss in when it comes to ethics and integrity, not a single one. Trump is what you've described but that description fits all of the Republican presidents since Eisenhower to a tee, so what's changed?

when did support turn into fluff you sick assholes.

The sick assholes are those who support & defend trump.

lara trump on Newsmax--"we (RNC) have lawsuits in 81 states right now".  

You are going to have an aneurysm if he wins.