All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[KOSLOX]

WBE.... Michelle Fiore. I'm sure you've covered her before, but... she can't stop, she won't stop, she's not even trying to stop.

[Malvolio]

The thing about Michelle Fiore is the same thing as with Sarah Palin. She's pretty and she grew up a pretty princess, so no one ever told her she was wrong. Some people may have thought, "Well, she's not too bright, but she's pretty, so she'll get by." And if she ever got made fun of for being not too bright, maybe she went to her father who would tell her, "Of course you're smart. You're just people smart instead of book smart."

So Fiore, like Palin, says mean and/or stupid things to her base, who nod their heads and confirm her idiocy. That's why she won't stop. She has no incentive to do so.

[KOSLOX]

The thing about Michelle Fiore is the same thing as with Sarah Palin. She's pretty and she grew up a pretty princess, so no one ever told her she was wrong. Some people may have thought, "Well, she's not too bright, but she's pretty, so she'll get by." And if she ever got made fun of for being not too bright, maybe she went to her father who would tell her, "Of course you're smart. You're just people smart instead of book smart."

[MindofShadow]

The thing about Michelle Fiore is the same thing as with Sarah Palin. She's pretty and she grew up a pretty princess, so no one ever told her she was wrong.

[Malvolio]

Now now. Let's not have that nonsense we had about Sarah Palin , where some of us couldn't even admit that she is physically attractive. I think it's fair to say that both Sarah Palin and Michelle Fiore are pretty on the outside and ugly on the inside.

[KOSLOX]

Now now. Let's not have that nonsense we had about Sarah Palin , where some of us couldn't even admit that she is physically attractive. I think it's fair to say that both Sarah Palin and Michelle Fiore are pretty on the outside and ugly on the inside.

Sarah, sure. Michelle though? I image searched her, I can see why some people might find her "attractive" but it's not because they look at her eyes when they talk to her.

Regardless, this isn't the pick apart women's appearance thread, so I'll just stand by my gif above and let people talk about the important issues like her talking about executing people.

[Double 0]

I'll leave it at this: I'm sure there's a demographic that is attracted to either of them, but their ideology limits their appeal to mostly bigots or those not into politics.

[MindofShadow]

Michelle Fiore are pretty on the outside

EDIT

What BAshenga said

[Kirby101]

I'd argue George Wallace was probably just as bad, if not worse.

He was talking how bad all the candidates are, not just one. Wallace was running against a strong Democratic field that included Humphrey and Kennedy in 68 and Humphrey, McGovern and Udall in 72. He had no support outside the south and no chance at the nomination. He did not represent who the Democrats were.
Not so with these Republicans. It's like the Republicans are now running a whole slate of Wallaces.

[Kirby101]

While what Trump said is loathsome, it's not necessarily toxic in a general election environment, so it may not be great news for Hillary.

Saying they wouldn't vote for a Muslim for President, and approval of completely barring all Muslims from entering the country are worlds apart.

More voters say they would not vote for an atheist. Do you think this means they would approve of apostasy laws?

[Mister Mets]

I don't see what that has to do with it, because of course there aren't any Muslims actually running. Even if you argue that Obama is some secret Muslim hellbent on destroying the Constitution, he apparently hasn't seen fit to go so far as to try and run for a third term. And while crazy rhetoric might work in the primaries when the main goal is just to get the attention from the cameras, in the general election people want to see the candidates acting presidential, offering intelligent-sounding solutions to actual problems, and taking the election seriously rather than treating it like a game. Trump got embarrassed in the debates by Carly Fiorina, of all people, how do you think he'd fare against Clinton?

If an election were a proxy on whether the public agrees more with Donald Trump or with Hillary Clinton on Muslims, I think Trump wins. This is an issue where Trump is wrong, but the majority is on his side. As a result, it's unlikely to hurt him. Hell, there's the immediate advantage that no one's talking about a poll that had him under twenty points in Iowa, and Ted Cruz in first place.

Saying they wouldn't vote for a Muslim for President, and approval of completely barring all Muslims from entering the country are worlds apart.

More voters say they would not vote for an atheist. Do you think this means they would approve of apostasy laws?

Ask again if an atheist couple kill over a dozen people, while pledging support for an international atheist terrorist organization responsible for killing over a hundred in coordinated attacks on a major European city.

[WAKANDA FOREVER!]

WBE.... Michelle Fiore. I'm sure you've covered her before, but... she can't stop, she won't stop, she's not even trying to stop.

As PDiddy would say, "Enh, enh, enh, enh!"

[Kirby101]

If an election were a proxy on whether the public agrees more with Donald Trump or with Hillary Clinton on Muslims, I think Trump wins. This is an issue where Trump is wrong, but the majority is on his side. As a result, it's unlikely to hurt him. Hell, there's the immediate advantage that no one's talking about a poll that had him under twenty points in Iowa, and Ted Cruz in first place.



Ask again if an atheist couple kill over a dozen people, while pledging support for an international atheist terrorist organization responsible for killing over a hundred in coordinated attacks on a major European city.

So if an atheist was responsible for a heinous act, you would be okay with laws that ban all atheists?

But I was more talking to the stat you used. Not voting for a type of presidential candidate is only tangentially related to how people would react to draconian laws about a whole group. I don't think that poll you cited has any real relavance to how people would view Trump's Muslim ban.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

WBE.... Michelle Fiore. I'm sure you've covered her before, but... she can't stop, she won't stop, she's not even trying to stop.

I just read about her latest ravings. Lord have mercy! That harridan has SERIOUSLY gone off the rails, but I'm sure there are legions of likeminded trolls out there who loved what she said, and that's what worries me more.

[Mister Mets]

So if an atheist was responsible for a heinous act, you would be okay with laws that ban all atheists?

But I was more talking to the stat you used. Not voting for a type of presidential candidate is only tangentially related to how people would react to draconian laws about a whole group. I don't think that poll you cited has any real relavance to how people would view Trump's Muslim ban.

As I said in the post you quoted "This is an issue where Trump is wrong."

I think the poll shows that a majority doesn't care for Muslims. We're unlikely to know for sure, since these policies are very unlikely to be implemented.