Artificial turf coming to old Tiger Stadium?

**Lowell** · February-03-16, 09:33 AM

One of my favorite quotes:

"If a horse can't eat it, I don't want to play on it. "
Richie Allen

**Junjie** · February-03-16, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

I'm sick of old people talking about this site as if it has an intrinsic worth. It's just a piece of grass. To anyone under 30, to anyone who moved to Detroit after 2000. It looks like crap and even a McDonald's or WalMart would be better than what's there. Holding on to a past [[when there's no past there - unlike the train station) just makes you out of touch with reality. I don't give one ounce of care whether they use real grass, turf or making it an outdoor swimming pool. Nor should anyone else. The fact the question is posed is barbaric.

3/10 for trolling. Preserving part of the past alongside new development [[the announced offices, townhouses, and retail - remember those?) is hardly barbaric. I'd say annihilating the past just because you're personally too young to remember it would be, though.

I turned 30 last month and might have gone to three Tigers games with my parents before the stadium was torn down. Doesn't mean I see any reason to destroy the value people place on that site by building a WalMart instead of respectfully keeping part of it set aside for youth sports.

**masterblaster** · February-03-16, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Junjie

Respectfully, I don't really see the problem. Modern synthetic turf is not the horrible Astroturf of yore, and the field is in really bad shape. Yeah, I know volunteers have done what they can and it's deeply appreciated by many including myself, but the field itself is now uneven, pitted, ruts in the dirt, etc.

Bring it up to playable conditions and keep it easy to maintain. The dirt, plate, bases will all still be in the same place. If it proves to be a huge success and funding for maintenance is available, they can always put sod back down. The important thing is that people, including many who never even knew Tiger Stadium, will continue to play baseball at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull.

P.S. I did some googling on this and found out that Detroit is one of only 2 of the 14 original major league franchises that have gotten new stadiums to preserve the ballfield at all. I hope knowing how exceptional this is might help some feel better about the outcome despite the aesthetic concerns [[not sarcasm).

Polo Grounds - apartments
Ebbets Field - apartments
Shibe Park - church
Forbes Field - University of Pittsburgh buildings
Comiskey Park - parking lot
Griffith Stadium - Howard U. Hospital buildings
Crosley Field - highway/parking lot
Braves Stadium - Boston U. soccer+lacrosse field
Cleveland Stadium - site of new NFL stadium
Sportsmans' Park [[Busch Stadium 1953-66) - Boys' and Girls' Club football/soccer field

Old Yankee Stadium - site of a park with original diamond and dimensions

Fenway Park, Wrigley Field - still standing

The status of "old" Tiger Stadium should be as Fenway Park and Wrigley Field. There was no good reason to leave there in the first place. Why didn't the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs build new stadiums? Fenway and Wrigley are just as old.

**jackie5275** · February-03-16, 11:58 AM

I personally don't like the idea of artificial turf. I've always liked natural turf as a personal preference. However, it has been reinforced since my kid started playing football. He has played on both surfaces and cited that the artificial turf is much harder on his body. One example is the amount of heat it gives off makes the players feet burn up. I've seen him & his teammates pull off their cleats, peel their socks off, and pour cold water on their feet immediately after a game played on artificial turf in Aug or Sept because their feet are burning some much. If they're talking about have kids play baseball & especially soccer on it, they may want to take into consideration keeping it natural so as not to damage growing bodies. But then again, the cost is the bottomline. Field maintenance is cheaper with artificial.

**mikeg19** · February-03-16, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by masterblaster

The status of "old" Tiger Stadium should be as Fenway Park and Wrigley Field. There was no good reason to leave there in the first place. Why didn't the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs build new stadiums? Fenway and Wrigley are just as old.

No good reason? What are you on man? Is that why Boston and Chicago have had to pour hundreds of millions in renovations into the stadiums, and they're still terrible with regard to up to date amenities? I've been to both to watch a game. Boston's seats were made for 5'6" 135lb men from 1920. I'm average size and could barely fit. The concourses are too small. You think the Joe is bad? Cut that in half. Bathrooms are inadequate, tons of obstructed view seating, not handicapped enabled. Need I go on? I get it. Yea it was cool to take the tour and go there, but for anyone living in those cities who has to be subjected to that crap as a season ticket holder or someone who goes to several games a year, screw that.

Tiger Stadium was falling apart and looking rough. Owners build new stadiums with the latest and greatest to attract top talent and sell corporate suites. Do you think Pudge Rodriguez or any other high priced free agents that has helped reestablish Detroit as a legit baseball town would have came here after they walked through that hellhole? Doubt it. At least Boston and Wrigley had some architectural character. IMO Tiger Stadium was ugly as hell. It was a big white and blue box.

Probably going to catch a lot of crap for this post, hating on Tiger Stadium like this, but when all is said and done, I like Comerica's sight lines and the fact I don't have to wait an hour to take a piss rubbing shoulders with some guy in the john.

**jackie5275** · February-03-16, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

No good reason? What are you on man? Is that why Boston and Chicago have had to pour hundreds of millions in renovations into the stadiums, and they're still terrible with regard to up to date amenities? I've been to both to watch a game. Boston's seats were made for 5'6" 135lb men from 1920. I'm average size and could barely fit. The concourses are too small. You think the Joe is bad? Cut that in half. Bathrooms are inadequate, tons of obstructed view seating, not handicapped enabled. Need I go on? I get it. Yea it was cool to take the tour and go there, but for anyone living in those cities who has to be subjected to that crap as a season ticket holder or someone who goes to several games a year, screw that.

Tiger Stadium was falling apart and looking rough. Owners build new stadiums with the latest and greatest to attract top talent and sell corporate suites. Do you think Pudge Rodriguez or any other high priced free agents that has helped reestablish Detroit as a legit baseball town would have came here after they walked through that hellhole? Doubt it. At least Boston and Wrigley had some architectural character. IMO Tiger Stadium was ugly as hell. It was a big white and blue box.

Probably going to catch a lot of crap for this post, hating on Tiger Stadium like this, but when all is said and done, I like Comerica's sight lines and the fact I don't have to wait an hour to take a piss rubbing shoulders with some guy in the john.

Despite the numerous complaints you raise with Tiger Stadium, you were still much closer to the action on the field. You didn't have the sun field you have now along the left field line. You had an overhang on the upper deck and a bigger one on the lower deck that gave some shade and refuge if it rained without you having to go to the concourse and return to a wet seat.

**bust** · February-03-16, 02:45 PM

My only two complaints about Tiger Stadium were the excess of structural columns and the inadequate bathrooms. I have no need for Comerica Park's bigger concourse and wider selection of dining options, its "museum", nor all those luxury boxes. I can see how those improve revenue for the owners, and the "museum" is good PR, but what I care about most is the experience of the baseball game. Maybe I didn't have the right seat at CoPa, or maybe my Tiger Stadium memories are rosily tinted with nostalgia, but I enjoyed baseball better at Tiger Stadium.

I'm not going to grouse about artificial turf though. I certainly wouldn't want it at Comerica Park. But for the repurposed Tiger Stadium I'd rather the field be usable than to not to exist at all, or for it to require inordinate funds to maintain. Like someone else said, it's better than a Walmart. More retail would be a good thing, but the field is a great idea.

Something people haven't said yet about artificial turf: it's much less sanitary. At least indoors. I played high school football in the Silverdome and the turf there caused nasty carpet burns. With all the accumulated spit and sweat those burns get quickly infected. Having the turf exposed to sun and rain outdoors will hopefully help clean it up.

My memories of Tiger Stadium are from the old Trammell /Whitaker /Morris /Parrish /Lemon /Gibson /Herndon /Sparky Anderson days. It could be many reasons why my favorite memories are from then. Including maybe because everything in life is more amazing as a kid. I wondered at the stone street curbs that looked like petrified wood. The brick streets. And still today. I'm looking forward to the next game.

**EastsideAl** · February-04-16, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Junjie

Cleveland Stadium - site of new NFL stadium

Oddly though, the Indians home field that preceded the old "mistake by the lake", League Park, has remained and has recently been restored by the City of Cleveland. Becoming something of a model for what Tiger Stadium could be [[artificial turf and all). Anyone who thinks people are crazy [[or "barbaric") for wanting to preserve the Tiger Stadium site as a living historic space for baseball should look at the article and pictures at this link:

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index...o_a_histo.html

**EastsideAl** · February-04-16, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

No good reason? What are you on man? Is that why Boston and Chicago have had to pour hundreds of millions in renovations into the stadiums, and they're still terrible with regard to up to date amenities? I've been to both to watch a game. Boston's seats were made for 5'6" 135lb men from 1920. I'm average size and could barely fit. The concourses are too small. You think the Joe is bad? Cut that in half. Bathrooms are inadequate, tons of obstructed view seating, not handicapped enabled. Need I go on? I get it. Yea it was cool to take the tour and go there, but for anyone living in those cities who has to be subjected to that crap as a season ticket holder or someone who goes to several games a year, screw that.

Tiger Stadium was falling apart and looking rough. Owners build new stadiums with the latest and greatest to attract top talent and sell corporate suites. Do you think Pudge Rodriguez or any other high priced free agents that has helped reestablish Detroit as a legit baseball town would have came here after they walked through that hellhole? Doubt it. At least Boston and Wrigley had some architectural character. IMO Tiger Stadium was ugly as hell. It was a big white and blue box.

Probably going to catch a lot of crap for this post, hating on Tiger Stadium like this, but when all is said and done, I like Comerica's sight lines and the fact I don't have to wait an hour to take a piss rubbing shoulders with some guy in the john.

I'm not going to get into the Tiger Stadium vs. Comerica Park debate here, because that horse has been beaten to death here and elsewhere over the years. And, of course, in the end its been rendered completely and irrevocably moot.

I did want to point out a couple of things though about your tirade about old ballparks in general, and Wrigley Field and Fenway Park in particular. It should be pointed out that neither of the teams who play in those ballparks have exactly suffered because of it.

Both the Cubs and the Red Sox regularly outdraw the Tigers. The Red Sox do so in a smaller city, and the Cubs with teams that have rarely been winners. As for attracting good players to play in old parks, I don't think I'm being too much of a jerk to point out that the Red Sox have won 3 more championships in Fenway than the Tigers have won since they moved into Comerica.

**mikeg19** · February-04-16, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

I did want to point out a couple of things though about your tirade about old ballparks in general, and Wrigley Field and Fenway Park in particular. It should be pointed out that neither of the teams who play in those ballparks have exactly suffered because of it.

Both the Cubs and the Red Sox regularly outdraw the Tigers. The Red Sox do so in a smaller city, and the Cubs with teams that have rarely been winners. As for attracting good players to play in old parks, I don't think I'm being too much of a jerk to point out that the Red Sox have won 3 more championships in Fenway than the Tigers have won since they moved into Comerica.

AL for the most part I agree with you. Those two examples obviously buck the trend.

But for the most part, Boston has almost always had a good product on the field worth watching. Looking back at their record for the past 30 years or so, I'm sure they barely ever finished below .500 or were really out of the pennant race. Chicago, well, we all know about that teams futility, but cheap tix and a town that loves their baseball always draws. So yea, they haven't really suffered horribly because of the aging facilities.

I would argue that those two stadiums are able to attract high talent players because they are in more "metropolitan" cities. I think we all remember the whole Johnny Damon wife comments about Detroit, yes? I think with the money being even, a player would almost always pick Chicago or Boston over Detroit because of the surrounding city's offerings in terms of entertainment, nightlife, restaurants, etc. That's not a dig on D-town, just an observation.

**erikd** · February-05-16, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

AL for the most part I agree with you. Those two examples obviously buck the trend.

But for the most part, Boston has almost always had a good product on the field worth watching. Looking back at their record for the past 30 years or so, I'm sure they barely ever finished below .500 or were really out of the pennant race. Chicago, well, we all know about that teams futility, but cheap tix and a town that loves their baseball always draws. So yea, they haven't really suffered horribly because of the aging facilities.

I would argue that those two stadiums are able to attract high talent players because they are in more "metropolitan" cities. I think we all remember the whole Johnny Damon wife comments about Detroit, yes? I think with the money being even, a player would almost always pick Chicago or Boston over Detroit because of the surrounding city's offerings in terms of entertainment, nightlife, restaurants, etc. That's not a dig on D-town, just an observation.

Let's compare apples to apples...

The Cubs and the White Sox have both played in Chicago for well over 100 years. The Cubs and the White Sox both played in two of the oldest MLB stadiums until the White Sox built the New Comiskey in 1991. The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1907, and the White Sox hadn't won a WS since 1917.

From the early 1900s until 1990, both Chicago teams played in old ballparks in the city, and both teams failed to win championships. In 1991, the White Sox opened a new ballpark, and the Sox had higher attendance than the Cubs in both 1991 and 1992, as the Chicago baseball fans came out to see the first new Chicago ballpark in generations. In every year since 1992, the Cubs have had higher attendance than the White Sox.

In 2005, the White Sox won their first World Series in 98 years, and the first Chicago World Series victory in 88 years.

Even with all of the excitement about breaking the Chicago championship baseball drought, the 4th place Cubs, who finished with a losing record that year, still drew significantly more fans than the championship White Sox.

**smogboy** · February-05-16, 01:32 AM

I haven't looked into this or have done any inquiring into it but has anyone asked if the old Tiger Stadium site were to be left alone and the surface be kept natural, would the Navin Field Grounds Crew be willing to help maintain it? They've been doing it for all of these years already and they seem like a pretty civic minded bunch too. And maybe not do it for free but couldn't there be some stipend to help them maintain their mowers, pay for gas, or pay for some of their time?

Is this a viable solution we've all overlooked??

**drjeff** · February-05-16, 05:04 AM

Detroit has outdrawn the Cubs 4 of the past 5 years. Last year the Cubs were a playoff team and the Tigers in last place, and even then Chicago barely outdrew Detroit. Attendance since the Tigers moved to Comerica Park is far, far higher than it EVER was in Tiger Stadium. In 1999, the final year of TS, the Tigers drew just over 2 million fans. Most of the 1990s it was more like 1.5 million. The lowest attendance ever in Comerica Park was 2003, when the Tigers had a historically bad team, and it was still 1.4 million.

I think Tiger Stadium was probably the very best place of any stadium to watch a game if you had a good seat, but half the seats in the stadium were between bad and terrible. Anything below the lower deck overhang and you couldn't see the flight of the ball. The upper deck seats in the outfield were ridiculously far from home, especially the bleachers, which may have been a fun place to watch a game but were really terrible for seeing the action.

That said, I'll be sad to see the grass disappear from the Corner. Stupid soccer ruins the fields, so they really have no choice.

**eastland** · February-11-16, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

One of my favorite quotes:

"If a horse can't eat it, I don't want to play on it. "
Richie Allen

Lowell:
You mean Dick "Don't Call Me Richie" Allen!

**401don** · February-11-16, 11:39 AM

For some reason I can't get the link to work, but a Crain's article today states that Lear Corp. has pulled its 25k annual funding to PAL because the Tiger Stadium site plans don't live up to the spirit of the 3 million dollar fed. grant. This seems a little petty. The plans are long past the point of preserving any of the Tiger Stadium site and since when aren't fed. pork grants mostly wasteful.

**Zads07** · February-11-16, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

For some reason I can't get the link to work, but a Crain's article today states that Lear Corp. has pulled its 25k annual funding to PAL because the Tiger Stadium site plans don't live up to the spirit of the 3 million dollar fed. grant. This seems a little petty. The plans are long past the point of preserving any of the Tiger Stadium site and since when aren't fed. pork grants mostly wasteful.

Here's the link:
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-tied-to-tiger

And good on Lear for pulling their money. Baseball was meant to play on grass, not artificial turf. The fact that Lear is pulling their money is a huge sign that this is more than just a 'petty' argument between a company [[PAL) and 'some' people who want the grass saved.

People have memories there and yes, although the dimensions will be saved, would it not be even better to save the grass as well? There has to be some sort of compromise. Heck NFGS has done a more than bang-up, incredible job keeping Old Tiger Stadium field in tip-top shape, just volunteering. Why not allow them to take care of it on some sort of schedule? This shouldn't be that hard and PAL should listen to the community.

To those people who say, who cares, just put in the turf? If this wasn't such a big deal, then why are people up in arms about it and why did a corporation pull funding?

**Towne Cluber** · February-11-16, 12:27 PM

1. Given that most colleges/high schools have installed turf, what do critics of this project know that athletic professionals don't know about getting maximum usage and cost controls out of field space?

2. Do critics realize that professional fields are re-sodded every few years - so the site is not in fact "the same grass and dirt" that legends played on"?

15+ years ago I was against turf, especially at historic venues, however as I've become more involved in athletic coaching and administration -- I realized that the demands of multiple sports [[and the increasing numbers of younger/girls teams) on grass simply isn't tenable.

As much as I love the Tiger Stadium/Navin Field site as well, the concept of a [[glorified) neighborhood park where people play pickup games on the "original" field isn't a realistic permanent solution. And that's what this is really about. People accusing PAL of being selfish are in fact the selfish ones. For all sorts of reasons, we need to focus on getting as many Detroit kids into as many [[physical) activities as possible...not arguing over grass versus turf.

**mikeg19** · February-11-16, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Zads07

To those people who say, who cares, just put in the turf? If this wasn't such a big deal, then why are people up in arms about it and why did a corporation pull funding?

Because people are moronic. They're probably the same idiots who think voting for Trump is a good idea.

That aside, the NGC is a group of dudes on mowers blasting down weedy grass every couple weeks. The PAL needs a team of people to mow and MAINTAIN the fields where hundreds of kids are going to play on a daily basis. I'm fairly certain the guys on the NGC have real jobs and aren't going to have the availability of a dedicated service.

Again, and how any times do we need to hash this crap out: HUNDREDS OF KIDS A WEEK ARE GOING TO BE BEATING THE SHIT OUT OF THIS FIELD. DO YOU THINK REAL GRASS IS GOING TO HOLD UP TO THAT PUNISHMENT?

**mikeg19** · February-11-16, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Towne Cluber

1. Given that most colleges/high schools have installed turf, what do critics of this project know that athletic professionals don't know about getting maximum usage and cost controls out of field space?

2. Do critics realize that professional fields are re-sodded every few years - so the site is not in fact "the same grass and dirt" that legends played on"?

15+ years ago I was against turf, especially at historic venues, however as I've become more involved in athletic coaching and administration -- I realized that the demands of multiple sports [[and the increasing numbers of younger/girls teams) on grass simply isn't tenable.

As much as I love the Tiger Stadium/Navin Field site as well, the concept of a [[glorified) neighborhood park where people play pickup games on the "original" field isn't a realistic permanent solution. And that's what this is really about. People accusing PAL of being selfish are in fact the selfish ones. For all sorts of reasons, we need to focus on getting as many Detroit kids into as many [[physical) activities as possible...not arguing over grass versus turf.

Everything you said. Just close the thread here because it just needs to be done already.

**Beech Cricker** · February-11-16, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Zads07

People have memories there and yes, although the dimensions will be saved, would it not be even better to save the grass as well?

Zads, I thought the field dimensions were being sacrificed, too--to make room for the other parts of the development [[housing, retail), I assume, no?

**Zads07** · February-11-16, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Because people are moronic. They're probably the same idiots who think voting for Trump is a good idea.

That aside, the NGC is a group of dudes on mowers blasting down weedy grass every couple weeks. The PAL needs a team of people to mow and MAINTAIN the fields where hundreds of kids are going to play on a daily basis. I'm fairly certain the guys on the NGC have real jobs and aren't going to have the availability of a dedicated service.

Again, and how any times do we need to hash this crap out: HUNDREDS OF KIDS A WEEK ARE GOING TO BE BEATING THE SHIT OUT OF THIS FIELD. DO YOU THINK REAL GRASS IS GOING TO HOLD UP TO THAT PUNISHMENT?

HUNDREDS OF KIDS BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF REAL GRASS AROUND THE COUNTRY, ASK THOSE FOLKS HOW THEY TAKE CARE OF IT?

That sound good with the all-caps Mikeg19? Just shut it. If real grass is such an issue, then lets replace the real grass everywhere in the world because kids beat the shit out of it on every playing field.

**mikeg19** · February-11-16, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Zads07

HUNDREDS OF KIDS BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF REAL GRASS AROUND THE COUNTRY, ASK THOSE FOLKS HOW THEY TAKE CARE OF IT?

That sound good with the all-caps Mikeg19? Just shut it. If real grass is such an issue, then lets replace the real grass everywhere in the world because kids beat the shit out of it on every playing field.

Yea, you're definitely someone who thinks Trump is a good candidate with that kind of
rhetoric.

You literally proved my point for me man. Drive past any playground, field, ball diamond, etc. They are fields of dust and rocks with the occasional patch of grass that hasn't been destroyed yet. Why would they pour tons and tons of cash into trying to maintain grass when they can put in artificial turf or something of the sort and not have to deal with it? Kinda seems like common sense to most of us, but apparently not all of us.....

**Zads07** · February-11-16, 04:05 PM

There are 3 main facts to look at here:

1. PAL cited a MSU professor as a source with him saying artificial turf is cheaper. That's only because it fit within their budget, 'cheaper' to maintain, yet the professor still says grass is the correct option.
2. ESPN put out an investigative piece I believe last summer. They cited health concerns with crumb rubber as a possible source of cancer, although it hasn't yet been proven.
3. LEAR pulling their funding from PAL is huge and they pulled it because they want real grass.

Why should we just say ok, artificial turf is ok because someone will redevelop it and if they don't choose artificial turf, we might risk losing the site to another developer? As residents, we should demand the highest from our public officials to do what is best for the site. Just because we can choose artificial turf doesn't mean we have to. It's not like anyone is married to the idea, it's the fact PAL is stating it's cheapest.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the...tially-safety/

**Towne Cluber** · February-11-16, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Zads07

There are 3 main facts to look at here:

1. PAL cited a MSU professor as a source with him saying artificial turf is cheaper. That's only because it fit within their budget, 'cheaper' to maintain, yet the professor still says grass is the correct option.
2. ESPN put out an investigative piece I believe last summer. They cited health concerns with crumb rubber as a possible source of cancer, although it hasn't yet been proven.
3. LEAR pulling their funding from PAL is huge and they pulled it because they want real grass.

Why should we just say ok, artificial turf is ok because someone will redevelop it and if they don't choose artificial turf, we might risk losing the site to another developer? As residents, we should demand the highest from our public officials to do what is best for the site. Just because we can choose artificial turf doesn't mean we have to. It's not like anyone is married to the idea, it's the fact PAL is stating it's cheapest.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the...tially-safety/

Top 3 Main Priorities to look at here:

1. Detroit kids participating in organized activities.
2. Maintaining the site as a sporting venue.
3. Other development [[retail/residential) at the site which will add to jobs/tax base/amenities for residents/visitors.

In response:

1. Countless high schools/colleges have also determined that turf is the more economical and the best way to get the most use of the field.
2. There are other, non-controversial infill alternatives to crumb rubber.
3. All other sources HAVE NOT pulled their funding and want the plan to move forward regardless of turf/grass.

**downtownguy** · February-11-16, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Zads07

There are 3 main facts to look at here:

1. PAL cited a MSU professor as a source with him saying artificial turf is cheaper. That's only because it fit within their budget, 'cheaper' to maintain, yet the professor still says grass is the correct option.
2. ESPN put out an investigative piece I believe last summer. They cited health concerns with crumb rubber as a possible source of cancer, although it hasn't yet been proven.
3. LEAR pulling their funding from PAL is huge and they pulled it because they want real grass.

Why should we just say ok, artificial turf is ok because someone will redevelop it and if they don't choose artificial turf, we might risk losing the site to another developer? As residents, we should demand the highest from our public officials to do what is best for the site. Just because we can choose artificial turf doesn't mean we have to. It's not like anyone is married to the idea, it's the fact PAL is stating it's cheapest.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the...tially-safety/

Zads07, thanks for injecting facts into the discussion.

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Yea, you're definitely someone who thinks Trump is a good candidate with that kind of
rhetoric.

No, Trump rarely relies on facts. I had you pegged as a Trump supporter.