Type to search

Notes from the Trump-Pence Logo Design Meeting

Tags:

118 Comments

  1. AgLander July 17, 2016

    The author describes the Trump-Pence logo as “…….interlocked, almost sexual position”.

    Using that sophomoric, dorm room logic, I guess everyone walking around with their shoelaces tied are displaying an “interlocked, almost sexual position”.

    Why do liberals always act like barnyard animals in seeing (and seeking) sex in everything? Are they repressed?

    P.S…….most articles here at NM are created in dorm rooms, so maybe I answered my own question!

    Reply
    1. itsfun July 17, 2016

      Ditto

    2. charleo1 July 17, 2016

      I know you prefer your articles to come out of a Koch funded think tank. You Righties are just too tough. Hypocrite much? Ouch! That didn’t hurt! Faker/Con, Ouch! That didn’t hurt either! WMD liars/warmongers! You’re not hurting me at all! Birthers, nut jobs, flat Earthers, science deniers, corporate lap dogs, Italian loafer lickers, fingers in your ears, tongue wagging turkeys voting for Christmas! It’s all good because Trump’s going to win. Isn’t that the turkey corn they’er feeding you?

      1. AgLander July 17, 2016

        Science denier? Let me guess….you are against the science of GMO’s that have led to tremendous improvements in agriculture production and quality…….now whose the anti-science hypocrite?!
        P.S….I bet you are a loud voice against the science of childhood immunization shots too! Recognize yourself “hippie-crit”?!
        P.S.S……and yet you probably are for the legalization of pot because it is so harmless!
        You libs are so low intellect it would be funny if it wasn’t so dangerous for the rest of us common sense folks.

        1. charleo1 July 17, 2016

          You’re going with agriculture, and immunization, to cover the fact that half the Republican Party believes the Earth is only 5,000 years old, and the other is sure global warming, the most serious environmental challenge man has ever faced, is a hoax. I’d like to say, a very nice try. But that would be a big old lie.

          1. AgLander July 17, 2016

            Deflection…..are you in favor of GMO’s or aren’t you? It doesn’t get any more high science than that. Be careful….your answer may reflect whether you are science based or (more likely) fear based in things you don’t understand and have no gumption to learn about because it would require a little effort.

  2. AgLander July 17, 2016

    Hillary has just released her own campaign logo featuring an email server with Chinese and Russian hackers standing arm in arm behind it while congratulating one another!

    Reply
    1. Jinmichigan July 17, 2016

      Spoken like the child you are.

      1. tbs July 17, 2016

        Awe, poor sport! You can dish it out, typical PC liberals, but can’t take it when someone calls you out!
        Whose the child? Humph!

        1. Bev Haut July 17, 2016

          You’re just all over this TP thing aren’t you, sugar? I hope you get some therapy soon because you can’t spell, and you obviously are incapable of independent thought, much less form a complete sentence. I hereby sentence you to Disqus Hell.

    2. ralphkr July 17, 2016

      Once again you have outdone yourself in proving your ignorance, AgLander. Computer experts have examined the Clinton server and stated repeatedly that there are no signs of anyone hacking (the one person who claimed to have hacked the Clinton server finally admitted that he was lying but only after it was proven that he had extremely limited computer expertise). On the other hand, the government servers, including the State Department’s, have often been hacked soooo the Chinese & Russian hackers are standing arm-in-arm behind the official US government servers.

      1. AgLander July 18, 2016

        “Computer experts”!?! That’s the first I’ve heard…….did you have an alcohol induced dream? Give me their names, Santa…..and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills do not qualify!

        1. ralphkr July 18, 2016

          You’ve never heard of computer experts.AgLander??? I strongly suggest that you have a discussion with whomever reads and interprets the news for you as there have been numerous articles that mention experts examining the system and how there had been attempts to hack that had been thwarted by the servers security system. You want the names or they did not exist…well, AgLander by your strange reasoning you have just proven that there was never any FBI investigation because the FBI did not publish the names of the agents. By the way, the Clinton server had newer and better security programs that the official government servers (which had been hacked by foreign entities).

          Personally, if I had been the Clintons and the FBI wanted my server I would have told them that if they wanted it that they should bring a checkbook because it is private property.

          1. AgLander July 18, 2016

            So…you got nuthin….thanks……at least we understand one another, nice try! Next!! Go back to sleep, Santa……..

          2. ralphkr July 18, 2016

            Yep, AgLander, it is so true that I have nothing that supports your falsehoods & fantasies. Unfortunately, for you, I am able to read & comprehend articles that you continuously prove that all of which are far beyond your comprehension. If you know someone who can do a bit of digging for you they shall quickly discover page after page of articles about computer experts (none of whom are ever identified) examining the Clinton server just as they shall find reams of articles about the FBI investigation (none of those FBI agents are ever identified).

            I do know that there is one source that you shall gobble up because they state that there were over 90K confidential E-mails on the Clinton server and they were all copied to China & Russia. You shall quickly realize just how believable this source is (to idiots) since that is also the one that reported that Benghazi was caused by Hillary Clinton after Ambassador Stevens wife had refused her advances Hillary went to Obama and requested that he have his Muslim Brotherhood take care of Ambassador Stevens so Hillary could have Stevens’ wife.

      2. Daniel Wright July 19, 2016

        You are the ignorant one. Comey said that the methods Russia,China or Iran used would leave no traces of their intrusion. He didn’t say there were no hacks,he said his techs couldn’t tell.Comey didn’t say Hillary wasn’t hacked.He said she was likely hacked. http://www.cyberwar.news/2016-07-08-though-she-wasnt-charged-with-a-crime-hillary-clintons-private-email-servers-were-likely-hacked-fbi.html

        1. ralphkr July 19, 2016

          Yes, Daniel, I do know that in Comey’s political speech he said that his techs could not tell if Clinton’s server had been hacked but he failed to explain how these untraceable hackers were exposed in official government servers such as the Russian hacking of the State Department servers & Chinese, Iranian, & Russian hacks of other Federal government servers. Considering that the Clinton server had far more modern and sophisticated security systems than the government systems (Congress consistently refuses to waste money on computer security) it is far more likely that IF the Clinton server was hacked that there would be giant flags showing the attempt. Oh, I just realize how we know. We know that the federal servers were hacked because they left little messages behind “Boris was here” or “Xuan was here” but they forgot to leave messages on the Clinton server (because they never hacked it). Of course, as a good Republican Comey would do all he could to smear Clinton but, as a good LEO, he would not go as far as Congressmen and fake evidence.

          1. Daniel Wright July 19, 2016

            You’re coming up with lots of excuses but no evidence. Hillary’s server was unsecured. You’re also claiming that foreign hackers would have deliberately left breadcrumbs to follow. When they do that it is usually for bragging rights. When the enemy has such unfettered access to top secret information they want to keep the flow of information going. Leaving evidence of intrusion would cause the hacking victim to take steps to stop that leak. Why would they do something that stupid? Would you if you were a spy? That aside,Her destruction of classified documents and her refusal to turn them over to the rightful authority[the state department] were crimes in them selves. Comey lied about intent being necessary in order to be criminal isn’t true. I have looked up the statutes myself. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

          2. ralphkr July 19, 2016

            No, Daniel, I have not come up with any excuses. By the way, if Hillary’s server was unsecured then every government server is unsecured because it was the Secret Service’s duty to secure her server. I never claimed hackers left breadcrumbs but used that to show how ridiculous the claim that certain hackers were untraceable on Clinton’s server (which had far better security programs installed than the Federal computers) even though those same hackers had been traced on Federal computers therefore, if they really were invisible, they had to have left notes.

            If what Clinton did with Emails is so criminal that she should be jailed as you claim then I reckon Colin Powell will be spending even more time in prison than Clinton because he not even refused to turn over his Emails to State when they requested them but he destroyed them.

            Now here is the real question for you, Daniel: If there were Emails sent to Clinton’s server that should not have been sent there then why are they investigating Clinton instead of the people who illegally sent those Emails? The senders of those Emails are far more guilty than the recipient (ignoring the fact that most of those “confidential” Emails were not classified until long after they had been sent). Think of it this way, Daniel: If I mail you a bomb are you the guilty person or am I? Oh, that’s right, it depends upon if the recipient is a Democrat (guilty) or a Republican (innocent).

          3. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            I see nothing but diversions,false claims and poor excuses coming from you……………nothing. The secret service was only required to protect the premises the physical server was located at. That would only be when she was home. She never told them she had a server in her basement. Your belief that government servers are not as secure as Hillary’s was is pure fantasy. Tech experts know the truth. This is a computer tech site. Argue with them. https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/ Here is another. http://www.techrepublic.com/article/hillary-clintons-infamous-email-server-6-things-you-need-to-know/ Colin Powell’s emails are no comparison. He used a private email address but it was hosted on a .gov server. He never had his own private server in his basement. Hillary did. http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-colin-powells-emails-are-not-like-hillarys/article/2000949 How could Powell have destroyed emails that were preserved on the host .gov server? Her we go to fantasy island again. Only three of Powell’s emails were deemed classified and that was years after they were sent. Clinton sent over 100 that were “born classified” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/ Hillary didn’t have just one server. Over the years she had four.All unsecured and monitored. She also had unsecured blackberries against the advice of the NSA which she sent emails to her private server from them.Many of which were sent on airplanes and sometimes in unfriendly countries. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/06/hillary-clinton-emails-probe-blackberry-224154 But I’m sure that you will ask,What difference does it make?

  3. charleo1 July 17, 2016

    As I said, I can’t see where Pence will fix any of the political problems, and tremendous demographic shortfalls the Trump campaign will need to overcome in order to be successful. A headline could read, racist and polarizing demagogue picks ideologically rigid career politician, as running mate to further narrow his popular appeal.

    Reply
    1. AgLander July 17, 2016

      “As I said, I cant’ see…….”

      You should have stopped right there because those 6 words perfectly capture the essence of every comment you have ever posted!

      1. charleo1 July 17, 2016

        Well that was pretty easy. A headier thing would have been to tell me how you think Pence helps the Trump ticket. But you can’t see where he helps either. You’re funnier than you think you are. Say something else useless, yet full of absurdity.

    2. tbs July 17, 2016

      Yes, but beat Romney only by fraud voting! Fraud has been all the way through this Presidents term!
      So that view, of your article, is voided out as a valid one.

      1. charleo1 July 17, 2016

        Sore loser much? Instead of making lame excuses, I’d think you’d want to find where the Right, and the majority in the Country are parting ways.

        1. Hattie Odum July 18, 2016

          <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!ja390s:….,……

        2. Daniel Wright July 19, 2016

          It only takes a few thousand fraudulent votes in key precincts in swing states,not eight million.

          1. charleo1 July 19, 2016

            Only that didn’t happen either. Fraudulent voting is a proven made up problem to justify the suppression of votes the Right, or Republican Party most likely aren’t going to get. They’ve admitted as much more than once. See the results of the most extensive investigation ever carried out at the request of the Bush Adm.
            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html

          2. Daniel Wright July 19, 2016

            Check my post above.

          3. Jan123456 July 19, 2016

            Even the landmark SCOTUS Voter ID case (Crawford v Marion County) presented exactly ZERO cases of voter fraud in support of their case.

            None.

            Same for a similar case in Wisconsin. Frank v Walker

            None

            Don’t you think if it was so rampant, adding a bit of documented evidence would have been a good thing?

            Why do you think they didn’t?

          4. Jan123456 July 19, 2016

            And of these, how many would be fixed by having voters show an ID at the polls?

          5. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            You asked for documented evidence,I provided it. I notice that you didn’t criticize my evidence. Actually you only mentioned it in passing. Then you changed tactics. There are many methods to commit voter fraud. In order to ensure that elections are not stolen, counter measures must be used. Proving you are who you say you are is only one. Democrats are not the only people known to commit voter fraud. Republicans have done it too. I know from experience debating Democrats and being a former Democrat myself that you are also one. How would you like it if Republicans stole the presidency through massive voter fraud? Be careful what you wish for.

          6. Jan123456 July 20, 2016

            There are many methods to commit voter fraud.

            Agreed.

            However, the subject was brought up as “fraud voting”…not rigged machines, but voting. In addition, both the court cases that I presented were about Voter ID as that is the right’s big push. If absentee voting or rigged machines are documented problems, why are Republicans going after a problem (voter impersonation at the polls) that doesn’t exist?

          7. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            What is your proof it doesn’t exist?

          8. Jan123456 July 20, 2016

            I hope you have studied logic enough to know it’s impossible to definitively prove a negative. That being said, I do have plenty of proof to show that the kinds of fraud solved by showing ID at the polls pales in comparison to the kinds you linked me to above. From an effectiveness standpoint, fixing what you showed me would ensure less fraud than having voters show ID. It’s lower hanging fruit so to speak.

            1. Those advocating for Voter ID have yet to produce evidence that it does exist in anything approaching meaningful numbers. When they presented Voter ID laws, they did not show any evidence it was needed due to actual fraud. So far, they have not presented a single case of the kind of fraud fixed by showing ID at the polls.

            2. In the SCOTUS case of Crawford v Marion County, SCOTUS said,

            “While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483
            addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana…”

            3. Frank v Walker agreed “Second, the judge found that voter
            impersonation fraud (a ringer pretending to be a registered voter) happens so rarely in Wisconsin that the desire to reduce its occurrence cannot justify any significant burden on voters…”

            4. A multi year study from New York University Law School investigated purported voter fraud. They found virtually none that could be corrected by having the voter show ID.

            http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

            5. Showing an ID does not guarantee that a person is even eligible to vote. Felons can get drivers licenses. Non-citizens can get drivers licenses.

            6. Multiple GOP officials have admitted, either accidentally or on purpose, that the true purpose of requiring ID was to make it more difficult for traditional Democratic voters to vote.

            Mike Turzai, PA
            Glen Grothman, WI
            Jim Greer, FL
            Todd Allbaugh, WI
            Charlie Crist, FL (when he was a Rep)
            Don Yelton, NC
            Jim DeMint, Heritage Foundation
            Greg Abbott, TX (In Perez v Texas, unable to present evidence that voter impersonation at the polls actually existed)
            Scott Tranter (GOP consultant)
            Jason Thigpen (NC)
            Judge Richard Posner

          9. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            It wasn’t me who narrowed the scope to only consider one kind of fraud. That was you. Here are examples of reported fraud that were never followed up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zep1v69U7KQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0DrJDliT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ateAGCJ9FpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxu-zNJefs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iaN8fCrPfU My main complaint is the ability to steal votes with a machine . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZws98jw67g, This test proves it is easy to do and get away with. How can you prove fraud using a machine when the machine automatically deletes the vote stealing software? Leftists have laughed at my past claims of Democrats using these machines to steal elections. The last video proves it is a snap if you control them. It is common knowledge that George Soros owns most of the voting machines and the company that counts the votes. Do think He wants Trump to win or is Hillary his choice?

          10. Jan123456 July 20, 2016

            Absolutely. The topic I initially talked about was Voter ID and the court decisions that talked about the lack of the type of fraud it solved. My contention is the types of fraud that actually exist (such as what you initially posted) are being ignored because requiring ID has the added benefit of suppressing votes.

            I stopped at your video that was almost two hours long. The one that had the elected officials committing fraud would not have been stopped by requiring ID.

            I don’t know what happens with the affidavit in Brooklyn. The next step is important. Would the crew have been able to fill out a ballot, sign and affidavit then required to return with registration info before their vote would count? I don’t know, but neither do you.

            I love it when someone says “common knowledge”. It stops them from requiring any real research. For example, I “own” (as a stockholder) companies that I can’t even name because they’re part of a mutual fund. Would someone be able to accuse me of fraud due to my ownership? Sure. In reality, not really. Soros, I am sure, owns stock in many companies. What needs to be proven is more than that to substantiate your point.

          11. Daniel Wright July 21, 2016

            You accuse ME of not researching the subject?? Funny. You require me to show evidence of voter fraud insisting it must be massive to make a difference. I show the results of a little research and your response is to dismiss it off hand with nothing to show that you took the time to do your own research. Massive fraud is not needed. Those who’s job is to commit fraud do extensive research into the most effective ways to accomplish their goals. In a way they should be commended for their dedication to their nefarious craft. Carefully picked precincts in battleground states are targeted in advance. The voter rolls are studied and the number of votes needed to sway the results in those key precincts is calculated. The first video shows that poll observers witnessed people looking at pieces of paper to see what their addresses were. I know my street address,do you? Obvious fraud. The fourth one shows someone who voted four times under four names. She was convicted of voter fraud in court. She still thinks she did no wrong. The following posts show that the fix is in. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-judge-voters-without-id-may-vote-in-november-by/article_00d2b39a-3872-5a0c-b761-6bfa095c61e2.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fbreaking-news%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_co http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/florida-voter-fraud-3000-registrations-list-ups-stores-residence I see that you have no problem with felons voting. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/277432-mcauliffe-i-would-tell-the-republicans-quit-complaining Or illegals funding Democrats. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-illegals-funding-candidates-through-union-dues-fec-dems-ignore/article/2588393 This atricle illustrates the corruption of the Clinton campaign. http://freebeacon.com/issues/judge-denies-motion-to-halt-voter-citizenship-requirement/ This article shows that Obama and Lynch were in on it too. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting This shows that more than half of the drivers licenses in Ca. last year were to illegals. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/28/numbers-usa/did-more-half-all-california-drivers-licenses-go-u/ This one shows that there is no voter Id needed in Ca. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state Mix those two with the fact that the motor voter law is in effect in Ca. whwew you can register to vote at the DMV and you get thousands of illegal aliens voting in Ca. On top of all these facts you are still to show massive disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters due to voter ID laws. Your side had the election sewed up. Hillary is slated to win by the biggest margin in history. Stop bitching.

          12. Jan123456 July 21, 2016

            You require me to show evidence of voter fraud insisting it must be massive to make a difference.

            Oh come on, when did I ever insist it must be massive? Can you say hyperbole? I knew you could.

            Once again, I am not arguing your point that voter fraud DOES exist. However, (paraphrasing SCOTUS) the only type that is addressed by requiring ID at the polls is voter impersonation at the polls. ID does not address felons voting. ID does not address non-citizens voting. ID does not affect machines with malevolent programming. ID does not affect poorly trained poll workers.

            The New York Law School paper I posted for you (see page 19) shows how negligible it is…look how many 0s after the decimal point in the % of fraudulent votes.

            Why doesn’t the right work on fixing the legitimate problems you raised and only focus on requiring ID….fixing a problem that barely barely exists. As I said, because it has the benefit of suppressing the votes of those most likely NOT to vote GOP.

          13. Daniel Wright July 22, 2016

            You said if fraud was so “rampant” then I should show proof. You also claimed to have proof backing any claims of yours. Another word for rampant is widespread. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rampant Another word for widespread is massive. Same thing, same thing, same thing. Your incorrect scolding of me is noted. I gave you what you demanded no matter which adjective you used in the demand. You still dodged my demand. Show where voter ID requirements have disenfranchised large numbers of people. Just one verifiable incident will be enough. Is that too much of a hassle or am I the only one in this conversation required to do any research?

          14. Jan123456 July 22, 2016

            You said if fraud was so “rampant” then I should show proof.

            No, I did not Go back and read what I really said.

            1. I said that in the SCOTUS case (Crawford v Marion County) those in favor of requiring voter ID did not present one single case of the kind of fraud addressed by it. THEN I said, if it was so rampant, why could they not find actual fraud cases to support the need for ID.

            2. Over and over again, I have agreed with you that what YOU presented (the machine programming issue) is legitimate and needs to be addressed. However, that is being ignored in favor of a solution that needs a problem. You just can’t take “yes” for an answer.

            3. When you said it was “common knowledge” that George Soros owns most of the voting machines, THAT I did challenge you on.

          15. Daniel Wright July 22, 2016

            You state the case in one county and use that to dispute the fraud accusations in the entire country. The only thing you said about my claim about the Sosos machines was that my use of the phrase “common knowledge” showed my unwillingness to do research on the subject. The fact is I have been researching voter fraud of fraud for years. You didn’t deny that the machines could sway the results. The use of the phrase common knowledge may have been incorrect but then again you only have to change a small amount of votes in key areas to steal an election. Most elections are not landslides. few thousand here,a few hundred here and you win. This shows just how simple it is to steal an election using a Soros machine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaLyth-08Hg The machines are too easy to manipulate the vote count with. They should be banned until a foolproof version is developed. That may never happen. That being said,saving money by using software instead of paper ballots counted by people is a poor excuse. The integrity and honesty of any election should be priority one.

          16. Jan123456 July 22, 2016

            Once again, you can’t take “yes” for an answer.

            No, more than one county, but you’ll have to actually read the studies to which I gave you a link. I have no hope you will read.

          17. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

            Since you guys got away with it in 2000, you – as always – think we’re as dishonest and despicable as you are.

          18. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            The only votes that were thrown out in Fl. in 2000 were the absentee votes from the military. That was at the request of Al Gore. Try again.

          19. Jan123456 July 23, 2016

            Nope. This story came out from a satirical article by the “Duffel Bag” (actually in 2012) and since it meets the bias of the right, passed around as a genuine news article.

            http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/11/military-absentee-ballots-delivered-one-day-late-would-have-swung-election-for-romney/

          20. Jan123456 July 23, 2016

            Oh come on, Breitbart and Drudge?…hardly known for impartiality.

            But you go ahead and use them as your source of knowledge. You’re hopeless.

          21. Daniel Wright July 23, 2016

            You posted a phony article from a satire site and accuse me of using unreliable sources? This story is from 2000,not 1012. It is about Bush and Gore, not Romney. It was all over the news in 2000. Breitbart and Drudge are not known for kissing the ass of the left. That is why you demonize them. At least I didn’t use a phony military version of Monte Python as my source. Grow up.

          22. Jan123456 July 24, 2016

            Phony was the point. It was satire and the right wasn’t smart enough to realize that.

            Let’s say for the sake of argument that your sources were correct. Unlike the GOP, Gore would not have had to make up a new law (Voter ID) in order to win. He would have just had to use existing law.

          23. Daniel Wright July 24, 2016

            You just showed how phony you are by using that story. My sources are 100% correct. I don’t know where the hell you were in 2000 but it was all over the news then. Hell even the British press published stories about it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1375024/Gore-campaign-trying-to-block-military-votes.htmlYou're trying to deny that a documented historical fact took place. You were just too damned lazy to do research so you find a joke site that makes fun of the military.

      2. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

        Yeah, we all know you project GOP – and your own – faults on Democrats and “Liberals.” Can you give a coherent definition of “liberal” without looking it up or lapsing into nonsensical mutterings and profanity?

        1. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

          Why should he have to jump through your hoops? You would discount him no matter what. I also see no profanity from tbs. He only used seven four letter words in his post. None started with an F or an S.

          1. Sand_Cat July 21, 2016

            You’re right. Neither he nor other morons like you should try such a difficult thing as giving a coherent answer devoid of lies and delusion. It’s called a “rhetorical question,” idiot.

          2. Daniel Wright July 21, 2016

            There is nothing stopping me from answering your “rhetorical” question. I know exactly what it means. Now tell me what this means ANAL ORIFICE! I know the modern definition of liberalism is. Liberals are definitely NOT liberal. Progressivism is also not progressive. I also know what socialism means. I despise all those isms due to their destructive results on the Human race.

          3. Sand_Cat July 22, 2016

            My, but you have been busy.
            Yes, you obviously know a great deal. I believe it was Mark Twain who said something clever about the things we “know” that aren’t so.
            But keep going. You seem to have worked yourself up into a fine frenzy over a couple of jokes. I don’t know about your “mommy,”
            or whatever, but you sound like someone with serious insecurity issues.
            In any case, I won’t be joining you, but thanks for the offer.

          4. Daniel Wright July 23, 2016

            Frenzy? Hilarious. You are the one nutting up. Someone with an opposing view is “projecting”. Liberals seem to see opposing opinions as some kind or psychosis. Liberalism no matter how illogical, no matter how much it fails in it’s goals is [in your mind] the right thing to do even when it leads to massive poverty and misery. It’s ironic that the people who lay claim to the highest intelligence and the strongest moral character continue to stick to the same moronic policies that have failed millions upon millions of people insisting that they will succeed in eliminating poverty and create equality and justice for everyone. Your goals will be met if you can just throw enough money at them. Liberalism does just the opposite. Relying on emotion and good intentions gets you nowhere. The Einstein quote about insanity describes the liberal mindset to a tee. progressivism/socialism has proved a total failure. The only equality it creates is to make the people equally impoverished and yet you keep trying and failing over and over. Isn’t that what Einstein meant when describing the definition of insanity? Now who’s doing the projecting?

  4. itsfun July 17, 2016

    How can anyone think the logo is sexual? Have you seen the logo’s of sports teams?

    Reply
    1. Jinmichigan July 17, 2016

      Yes, you are that stupid.

      1. itsfun July 17, 2016

        Another intelligent comment from you.

        1. Jinmichigan July 17, 2016

          Thank you, did you get your mom to write this one?

          1. itsfun July 17, 2016

            Who read this to you?

    2. JPHALL July 17, 2016

      You obviously do not know the nearly universal sign for intercourse. One finger poking a circle make by your other hand.

      1. King of America July 18, 2016

        This guy literally thinks there’s nothing wrong with nazism; it’s not possible to explain things to him.

        1. itsfun July 18, 2016

          If someone doesn’t agree with you, it makes them a Nazi. Isn’t it just wonderful how people like you preach tolerance of the opinions of others, but have absolutely no tolerance.

          1. King of America July 18, 2016

            You LITERALLY AND EXPLICITLY demanded to know what was wrong with nationalism.

          2. itsfun July 18, 2016

            I asked what is wrong with America being first.

          3. King of America July 18, 2016

            OK sorry Adolf.

          4. itsfun July 18, 2016

            you never did answer that.

          5. King of America July 18, 2016

            I love that you still think that.

          6. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

            No, their being willfully ignorant and supporting the Neo-Nazi party makes them what they are.
            As usual, you think our “tolerance” ism supposed to let us be rolled over by some low-life like you without protest. Did anyone attempt to have you put in jail? Banned from the site? Investigated by the FBI (or by an endless series of Congressional committees)?
            You haven’t a clue what tolerance is, so don’t try to preach it to us.

          7. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            What neo-Nazi party? The Democrat party?

          8. Sand_Cat July 21, 2016

            Obviously the one you support.

          9. Daniel Wright July 21, 2016

            I am NOT a Democrat.

          10. Sand_Cat July 22, 2016

            Obviously the party you support. I didn’t say you were a Democrat; neither am I, for that matter.

      2. itsfun July 18, 2016

        Are you stupid enough to actually believe the logo is some kind of sexual sign? How much of a idiot are you?

        1. JPHALL July 18, 2016

          It is not my fault that you are so limited in real world knowledge. Goodbye dummy! Subject: Re: Comment on Notes from the Trump-Pence Logo Design Meeting

          1. itsfun July 18, 2016

            so long jerk

        2. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

          Don’t get so upset! Your claim to be the greatest idiot of them all is safe.

    3. King of America July 18, 2016

      Please learn to use the apostrophe correctly.

      1. itsfun July 18, 2016

        Another comment from the leading horses ass on the site.

        1. King of America July 18, 2016

          There’s no need to talk about yourself like that. Otto, for one, is far worse than you.

          1. itsfun July 18, 2016

            I don’t know Otto, but you are a horses ass.

          2. King of America July 18, 2016

            Yes I do get that you have nothing but impotent insults.

        2. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

          Hey! I thought you gave ME that title!

          Shall I file a lawsuit, or just have you “investigated”?

          1. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

            What will the grounds for your suit be.,itsfun’s exposing of your stupidity?

          2. Sand_Cat July 21, 2016

            Obsessive much?
            Don’t get enough attention on your own?

          3. Daniel Wright July 21, 2016

            I don’t need your kind of attention. You are the one who mentioned a lawsuit;But then was that another of your clever “rhetorical questions”?

          4. Sand_Cat July 22, 2016

            Yes, it’s obvious that you, like most zealots, are irony-deaf. I also didn’t mention the “suit” to YOU. I may not be clever but it’s pretty obvious you’re even worse.

          5. Daniel Wright July 23, 2016

            Are you denying that you made a veiled threat against itsfun? True, you didn’t mention the suit to me. You insinuated yourself into the conversation between itsfun and King of America. You can do it but I can’t? Who the hell are you except someone with an unjustified superiority complex just like most puffed up elitist leftist lemmings?

    4. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

      The same way you can think the fecal nonsense you post here.

      1. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

        You must be referring to the male bovine excrement emanating from your mouth.

        1. Sand_Cat July 21, 2016

          Not really.
          Having your head firmly ensconced in your rectum, you’re not in much of a position to see or judge anything.

          1. Daniel Wright July 22, 2016

            We can go on for days with these insults. Why don’t you ask your mommy to tuck you in for the night. You sound a little grouchy.

          2. Sand_Cat July 22, 2016

            You’re the one doing the insulting of someone who never even addressed you at all.
            As for your attempts at insults: projection, anyone?

          3. Daniel Wright July 23, 2016

            You are the one who said I had cranial /rectal inversion syndrome. This is a free forum. You don’t have exclusive rights to comment here. I will say my peace as I wish. You insert yourself into others conversations. I will too.What are you going to do about it,sue me?

  5. FT66 July 17, 2016

    When my progressive friend saw the logo, he shouted loudly, this logo means: “TRASH the POOR”.

    Reply
    1. tbs July 17, 2016

      Really! Your progressive friend has a very sick small mind! It is no wonder the liberals are, in the trouble they are in, as they are self destructing themselves finally!
      Couldn’t happen to crazier thinking people than them!????????????????

      1. MGR July 17, 2016

        Donald, I know your reading skills are the same as a pecan, but the only self-destructing party is the GOP. We all know you picked Pence because any Republican that may have a snowball’s chance in heII of a successful run at the presidency flat refuses to be your running mate.

  6. tbs July 17, 2016

    This article is sick with liberal PC side comments!
    Only a sick mind would come up with this thinking!
    Get a life!
    Surprised they did not complain about the white background being racist.

    Reply
    1. charleo1 July 17, 2016

      That would be, Liberal, “snide comments.” Get an education.

      1. FireBaron July 17, 2016

        tbs probably comes from one of those states that keeps losing their educational accreditation. Either that or he is a graduate of “Liberty University”.

        1. charleo1 July 17, 2016

          Heck, he don’t need no durn skoolin’ a messin’ up his thunking!

    2. Bev Haut July 17, 2016

      I see that you’ve missed the entire point of satire. Perhaps lessons in sarchasm(tm) might help? And you’re the obvious racist here, since you’re the only one who’s mentioned it. Go and smoke some more meth in yo mama’s basement and let the adults have a conversation.

      1. Rich July 17, 2016

        Sarchasm: The gap between the joke, and the top of the rube’s head.

        1. King of America July 18, 2016

          OK that is actually pretty good.

    3. King of America July 17, 2016

      I love – LOVE – that you idiots have decided to die on this particular hilarious hill.

    4. MGR July 17, 2016

      Hey, Donald, love your new screen name, but I think Ted Turner has the copyright on that.

    5. CrankyToo July 18, 2016

      The article’s hilarious!!! And you’re out there, Squire.

    6. Sand_Cat July 20, 2016

      So pleased you liked it.

      1. Daniel Wright July 20, 2016

        You’re so pleased that your party turns politics into porn.

        1. Sand_Cat July 21, 2016

          I, unlike blind and delusional zealots like you, don’t “have” a party. Speaking of delusions, not sure who is worse: tbs or you. As for “porn,” the obscenity is all yours.

          1. Daniel Wright July 21, 2016

            So being a registered independent makes me a blind zealot? If you say so. It was left wing idiots who’s dirty minds interpreted two letters on the alphabet as a a phallic symbol.

          2. Sand_Cat July 22, 2016

            What in the Hell are you talking about?

            Really, have you anything rational to say?

          3. Daniel Wright July 23, 2016

            You called me a blind zealot. meaning that I blindly follow a party. [most likely Republican] You’re just like another idiot named Wayne Thorson who thinks that all non Democrats are Republicans. I’m not a Republican. I call Wayne Forrest Gump because he deserves the moniker. You run neck and neck with old Wayne IMO.

  7. Dan S July 17, 2016

    With the T & P interlocking it goes without saying WHOA ???? I really wonder what they were smoking when they came up with that ridiculous logo. And to think of all the grief the right has given Hillary over hers ????

    Reply
    1. King of America July 18, 2016

      I feel quite safe in claiming that this is quite literally the most hilariously inept logo ever used by any political campaign in the entire history of mankind. Nobody has ever done a worse job.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.