Originally Posted By: Gunflint Charlie
Let's see. Trump makes his campaign one of appealing to voters who like thin-skinned, outrageous buffoons -- or maybe don't recognize buffoonery when it spatters in their faces.

But somehow seeing and not liking his buffoonery is a problem of wearing "media shaped blinders".

Ok then.

Back a few pages ago, you mentioned, "Neither Trump nor Clinton give a damn about speaking truth, and neither cares a whit about gun rights". Since, it's been personal attacks against Trump, with an occasional passing reference to policy.

No one could possibly get a hundred percent support, but it seems obvious that a candidate needs to appeal to feelings. It doesn't seem worth our while to discuss the pros and cons of Clinton's policy and track record, just feelings.

I appreciate that you found that tweet link about the justice. What's missing is the fact that the person is on the 'list', and may become an appointee. Do you feel the Texas justice could be a good fit on the highest court? Does vetting for hill mean that her appointees will have her agenda without fail?

Apparently you felt better about McCain and Romney. Did they inspire you to get out and vote? How did their nominees or any other policies work out?