Posted on 01/31/2016 11:20:40 AM PST by Heart-Rest
Sarah Palin, Clint Eastwood, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio are all Pro-Trump, while the people listed below are some of the more prominent Anti-Trump public figures who have recently come out publicly and stridently against Trump. It seems that a lot of voices have been publicly raised against Trump recently, but exactly who do these "voices" belong to? (Again, see list below.) Are you personally aligned with the Pro-Trump team, or with the Anti-Trump team which is represented below?
(They say that politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think we can at least all agree on this, that the following batch of Anti-Trump bedfellows are way beyond strange!)
(NOTE: Click on the links below to see the "distinctive" photos of the "Anti-Trump Celebrity Team". To read about their negative assessments of Trump,
just Google [ their-last-name Trump ] without the brackets.)
Priceless!
(I'm assuming you are referring to two of the "National Review Twenty-Two" there.)
Could you believe that National Review put Glenn Beck's article first in that collection of hit pieces?
Yeah. Most super rich people do. I seem to remember Bill Gates awhile back having problems with the government until he started donation money to certain political campaigns. It’s a cost of business.
Alphabetical order was the only rationale I could find. They are so dumb about image. LIke I care — I dumped them in 2008.
I think Huma would be anti Trump as well. The list is so what!
Yes, Trump said in the first debate that he paid for favors, I would define that as bribery, I would be interested in who initiated the bribe although I don’t trust either the one who proposed took or paid.
Between the Muslims on that list, and the Commies, and the LGBTQP's, and the GOPees, and the Dingleberries...
Well if you took a pole of those anti-Trump celebrities 99 percent would be anti-Cruz! So what the point?
Interesting. That was a lot of work. Thanks for the post.
You are comparing them to known liberals and RINOs simply because they have spoken out about or disagree with Trump.
Did you not call them “bedfellows”?
Denying/ignoring Trump’s liberal past and persistently cheerleading for him while fighting with other FReepers who aren’t on board with Trump’s campaign is, to the say the least, disingenuous and extremely divisive.
But then again, that’s the tack FR is willing to take. As for me, I’m not going to play that schoolyard taunt game. You and others may, but count me out.
Cheering and celebrating that other long-time FReepers were goaded into making some comment that gets them the zot or that they decide to opus out is NOT something to be proud of.
Maybe in time, you and others will figure out that what made FR so great was that it wasn’t an echo chamber and that folks could agree to disagree without getting personal and in the process, driving good people away.
<>===================================<>
This is not to guess at what someone might say if they happened to be asked by somebody in a poll. The point of my post is to focus on the public figures who have actually, really, truly already spoken publicly about their views about Trump and his proposals and ideas. (Most of these people have not spoken publicly or even said one little peep about their views concerning Cruz, or about any of the other candidates, only their views about Trump. Every single one of the people in my list has spoken publicly against Trump, and you can find what they said about Trump using a simple Google search.)
The point of my post is that the mainstream media, by focusing only on the public utterances against Trump, try to make it sound like there is a huge chorus of widespread public opinion by everyone against Trump and his proposals (especially his Muslim, illegal immigrant, and "refugee" ideas). I just wanted to focus on who those "many public voices" actually belonged to, and, as you can see from my list, those public voices consist mostly of Muslims, Communists/Demonicrats, perverted LGBTQPNDers, slippery and slimy GOPees, and the severely mentally challenged.
(In other words, the public voices speaking against Trump are not representative of America, but just a mainstream media selected narrow swatch of Americans who agree with the mainstream media concerning Trump. That was the point.)
"Bedfellows" refers tp a group of people who have formed a temporary alliance for reasons of expediency (such as the Anti-Trump "bedfellows" who share the same wish -- to stop his proposals and ideas).
These public individuals and mainstream media allies have all spoken publicly about Trump (and not much at all about the other candidates) because they are trying to thwart Trump's proposals relating to illegal aliens, Muslim screening processes, a "migrant refugee" Syrian safe-zone solution, a wall, etc. Those who agree with Trump's proposals have not been highlighted (or hardly mentioned) in the "news".
If we don't stop the "fundamental changing" of America soon, and stop the invasion of Muslim terrorist "refugees", illegal alien murderers, rapists, and other criminals, and the scourge of political correctness which squelches the truth, there might not be anyone advocating anything on FR or anywhere else. If your head isn't blown off by one of those lovely illegal "immigrants", you will be forced into silent capitulation by your new rulers.
No one is taunting anyone in my posts. I do not "zot" anyone, and I don't request zots, or celebrate when someone is zotted. I simply said the truth, which is that some of those recently zotted were also Anti-Trump like the public celebrities in my list, and could also be categorized and listed like that (as could some active FReepers). (Apparently you could be included in that "Anti-Trump" list as well. If so, that is simply the truth, not a "taunt".)
(If you have a problem with who is being "zotted", take that up with the zotters.)
Thanks for helping to prove my point. Maybe turning FR into an echo chamber is what many around here want.
Were you trying to be witty? If so, it’s lost on me as I don’t subscribe to the theory that in order to convince someone to your point of view you attempt to shame or ridicule them.
I suspect it was more of an attempt to personally attack me because my point of view differs from yours.
Many who engage in such ripostes are not interested in maintaining any civility. Simply looking to push flame bait.
You have yourself a good day, you hear?
We’ll see if there’s any reason to engage civilly on any other topics around FR. Maybe, maybe not. That’s the real shame of what’s going on.
I just pointed out the obvious. You were complaining about the coarseness, while being coarse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
