Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: locogringo who wrote (1010634)	4/8/2017 12:15:27 PM
From: Bonefish	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo TideGlider Respond to of 1573848

Some people are their own worst enemy and/or can't see the big picture.

To: locogringo who wrote (1010634)	4/8/2017 2:19:50 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573848

At what price? At the price of a conservative sane President. Which we don't have now. But we could have had and would have had (remember an old hag Democrats don't even like was their candidate). This guy did not have to be nominated and he didn't have to be kept once he got the nomination. Hell, they didn't have to allow him in the debates. Example, when he praised Britain's socialized health care at the first debate, he should h/b barred from more debates immediately. Because he showed he was in opposition to a key part of the party's platform and was pretending to be a Republican. What if Colbert had run and asked to take part in the debates .. would they have let him too? Even before the debates, he had bashed POW's: 'I don't like people who were captured,' ...... Later asked about that he defended it by saying: "You know after I said that, my poll numbers went up seven points." Based on that, he should h/b barred from the very first debate. Instead they allowed a clown in the race and even CHOSE him as their nominee. Why I'm an ex-Republican. I didn't change, you guys did.