Who?
a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Just FYI, Harambe McHarambeface is fake news.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-harambe-mcharambeface-appears-hoax/90309152/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-harambe-mcharambeface-appears-hoax/90309152/
It was that or link to Charlie Don't Surf with "worst thing about capitalism" but that seemed too on the nose, you know? I went for slightly more subtle.
Even Harambe's legacy is getting killed.[/meme mode]
The worst part is that it was a totally believable thing to happen. There was no reason to disbelieve it given current events. 2016 has been nuts.
This is the shit I have to face daily on Facebook. Then the dickhead challenges me to refute it...
Write one that looks just as legit, but with their name and a diagnosis for secondary explosive diarrhea due to complications from hell-AIDS contracted while violently raping a diseased pig. Print it out and take a picture of it.
Be sure to blur out the SSN and account name though, gosh.
Be sure to blur out the SSN and account name though, gosh.
And I have better tax lawyers than you do.
Fixed that...
Then challenge him to refute it.
No. I didn't want to skip Summer to get to Football. I sure has heck don't want to skip Football to get to Winter.
Hillary should just invite Johnson to a one on one debate.
He really has nothing to gain from the debates: if he acts like his typical self to Hillary's face, it's going to make him look arrogant and unstable. If he doesn't, then his followers are going to smell blood in the water and realize that he won't act how they want him to unless it benefits HIM. At least by not showing up at all he can claim it's because the debates were rigged and he wasn't going into a rigged game. It still makes him look weak to the moderates, but it would protect his core.
The only question is whether or not he thinks not doing the debates is worth the risk.[DOUBLEPOST=1474215772,1474215646][/DOUBLEPOST]
The only question is whether or not he thinks not doing the debates is worth the risk.[DOUBLEPOST=1474215772,1474215646][/DOUBLEPOST]
It would be as interesting gambit: getting Johnson's name and face out there as an alternative to Trump would probably pull some votes away from Trump, especially if Hillary treats him like a viable choice. He's unlikely to win, but anything to get the swing-state Republicans to jump to the Libertarians is beneficial to her at this stage of the game. She really doesn't have anything to lose.
Not to mention it would make it very clear that she's not scared to debate while Trump is. If they just don't have one, its the same as its been.
It would be bizarre if we reach election day with no debate whatsoever.
You can't deny it's been a bizarre election already. We had a dozen potential, viable Republican candidates gunning for the position and Donald Trump, the JOKE candidate, beat them all because the party lost touch with the base after 16 years of feeding them nothing but hate. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton (an aging liberal, feminist grandmother) was seen as the establishment candidate against an old white Jewish guy from New England. This election is fuckin' bananas and political theorists are going to be pointing to this election as the day that everything they knew about politics was proven WRONG.
GasBandit
Staff member
No he's not.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/gary-johnson-changes-his-mind-on-mandato
In 2011 he tweeted "No to mandatory vaccines," not because of any spurious autism claim or that vaccination is dangerous (positions he has never sided with), but because he did not want to put more medical power in federal hands. He has, some months ago apparently, had someone explain herd immunity to him, and changed his stance to "vaccination should be handled at the local levels," but if it must be handled at the federal level, he would "come down on the side of science and probably require the vaccine."
I didn't think your politicians were allowed to change their stance on an issue due to new information.
It hasn't been debunked, though it is thinly sourced and hearsay. However, here are things Trump has publicly said about nuclear weapons:
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrify...about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.prx317o4r
Including several times where he said it's important to be "unpredictable" with nuclear weapons.
No, Donald, that is the last thing you want. That's literally the danger in rogue states having nukes - they're unpredictable.
According to Dolan the mutant pumpkin, "the Constitution should not give everyone the right to due process"...
THAT IS LITERALLY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The Fifth Amendment, specifically. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/0...d-not-give-everyone-the-right-to-due-process/
THAT IS LITERALLY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The Fifth Amendment, specifically. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/0...d-not-give-everyone-the-right-to-due-process/
Trump 2016: Your Doom is assured, I can only hasten it.
No no no, he's neither black nor brown, so that doesn't apply to him. Sheesh. Learn to read between the lines!
For those, like me, who have no idea what Frank's bringing up, Don King, legendary boxing announcer, has recently introduced Trump during some function or another.
Don King was convicted of voluntary manslaughter - ie, murder without premeditated intent due to events which may cause a reasonable person extreme distress or emotional disturbance.
He served five years in prison, out of 20, then went on parole.
Nearly 20 years after the murder he was pardoned. I thought initially perhaps a corrupt governor (and who knows, that may be part of it) but then I read that the governor made his decision based on letters from others who I think we would tend to respect:
(emphasis mine, source)
Not interested in defending Trump, but someone who receives a pardon based partly on Jesse Jackson's and Coretta King's recommendation (as well as the parole board) might not be seen in as poor a light as Frank's statement, "Trump is having actual murderers introduce him" would suggest.
I don't know anything about the case itself, but it's clear Don King murdered someone in a moment of anger, and used his fists and feet to do so.
However it's quite possible that the conviction had some racist undertones.