Search forums

Forums

Export thread

a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Limit: 500

Apr 1, 2016#1

Charlie Don't Surf

no third parties
no hilarious "they both suck!!!" option
no "I wouldn't vote" option

Apr 1, 2016#2

blotsfan

No matter what you think about Clinton, I don't know how you could think Trump would be better.

Apr 1, 2016#3

Charlie Don't Surf

I have been burned before when I dared to question a group of folks' stupidity, idk what's possible.....

Apr 1, 2016#4

Eriol

https://www.halforums.com/threads/where-do-you-stand-2016-election.31413/ wasn't good enough for this discussion?

Apr 1, 2016#5

Charlie Don't Surf

Eriol said:
https://www.halforums.com/threads/where-do-you-stand-2016-election.31413/ wasn't good enough for this discussion?

i guess not if i made this thread

Apr 1, 2016#6

strawman

No matter who wins, we all lose.

Apr 1, 2016#7

Dave

Bernie still can win the nomination.

Apr 1, 2016#8

Charlie Don't Surf

Dave said:
Bernie still can win the nomination.

i don't think hillary is gonna be indicted really

Apr 1, 2016#9

Bubble181

"No third parties, no "not voting"" restricts the options more than the actual election. Even if I could vote, I'd vote for neither.

Apr 1, 2016#10

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
i don't think hillary is gonna be indicted really

I'm not talking about indicting. I'm talking about the fact that Bernie is poised to take a good chunk of delegates. And without the supers, they are very close. If the supers change based on their state's voting, Bernie wins the nomination outright.

Apr 1, 2016#11

MindDetective

Bubble181 said:
"No third parties, no "not voting"" restricts the options more than the actual election. Even if I could vote, I'd vote for neither.

You can always not vote, which is my response to this choice.

Apr 1, 2016#12

Denbrought

Geopolitical ramifications aside, a Trump victory would hasten my SO's plans to spend a few years living abroad with me, so...

Apr 1, 2016#13

strawman

I'd vote third party. This isn't an option in the poll, of course, but I suspect that a lot of people if put to this choice will support a third party.

Apr 1, 2016#14

Eriol

stienman said:
I'd vote third party. This isn't an option in the poll, of course, but I suspect that a lot of people if put to this choice will support a third party.

I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.

Apr 1, 2016#15

Bubble181

Eriol said:
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.

I don't know, we'll see, I think. If it really comes down to Trump vs Clinton, I can see a lot of "true" conservatives and a lot of millennials voting with their feet. Clinton'll base a lot of her campaign on "you have to vote for the lesser of two evils to keep Trump out!", but she's just too much a part of the System to be palatable to the younger generation. My guess would be such a choice would end up with a Trump win, with either very low voter turn-out, or a high margin of third party/write-in/etc votes. The Clinton team really seems to underestimate how much she's positioned herself for a fall with her "experience" angle. Pretty much everyone, left and right, agree the current system doesn't work, so good on you for saying you've been part of the system for so long and know it so well.

Apr 1, 2016#16

strawman

Eriol said:
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.

As a whole you are correct, the election would still go to one or the other. However, the third party voting should jump up significantly as people decide to not choose the lesser of two evils and instead choose a better candidate overall.

This should give a pretty good shot in the arm to the third parties, and make the duplicrats and replicons sit up and take notice for how badly they are doing things.

But honestly, for a third party to succeed they have to take a good portion of the house and senate. We won't have a third party president until people are widely electing them locally and for their state representatives and senators.

Apr 1, 2016#17

sixpackshaker

I am disappointed that there are fewer people than expected trolling for Trump.

Apr 1, 2016#18

Denbrought

sixpackshaker said:
I am disappointed that there are fewer people than expected trolling for Trump.

You're surprised a low-anonimity high-civility forum hasn't attracted a big crowd of /r/The_Donald-dwelling "cuck"-yelling /pol/acks?

Apr 1, 2016#19

sixpackshaker

Denbrought said:
You're surprised a low-anonimity high-civility forum hasn't attracted a big crowd of /r/The_Donald-dwelling "cuck"-yelling /pol/acks?

The poll is an April Fools joke to begin with, so that is my source of disappointment. But if we had a greater than 70% Trump support the OP would have retreated in a huff.

Apr 1, 2016#20

General Specific

Eriol said:
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.

Apr 1, 2016#21

PatrThom

Eriol said:
you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.

Hey, hey, don't lump us in with them.

--Patrick

Apr 1, 2016#22

Gruebeard

sixpackshaker said:
The poll is an April Fools joke to begin with, so that is my source of disappointment. But if we had a greater than 70% Trump support the OP would have retreated in a huff.

Now I'm disappointed, too.

Apr 2, 2016#23

Krisken

Eriol said:
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.

I like how you assume those 3rd party candidates are more appealing to everyone than the two stinkers heading the major parties, but gosh darn it we just can't wrap our tiny little minds around the idea of voting for a better candidate.

Apr 3, 2016#24

Zappit

The supers will not change. Bernie only decided to become a Democrat because he wanted to run for president - that's it. The party is just a means to an end for him, and there's a lot of Dems who feel that way. I know I do.

Bernie wants to do away with The Affordable Health Care Act and replace it with a single-payer system that has absolutely zero chance of passing both houses of Congress. Given the way incumbents stay in power, we'll still see a significant Republican presence that will likely block all of Bernie's big promises.

No single-payer healthcare.
No free state college.
No increased taxes on the top-earners.

These things are anathema to conservatives. Bernie knows this. He's not naive. But he has no intention of compromising. He knows these things will fail in Congress, but he'll keep going on and on about them until he gets the votes, and it comes off as disingenuous. The super delegates are aware of this. They see Bernie as the Tea Party on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and overwhelmingly reject him.

If it is Trump and Clinton, and I hope it is, you will see a high turnout to keep Trump out. The most recent models have Clinton soundly defeating Trump.

Apr 4, 2016#25

AshburnerX

Zappit said:
Bernie wants to do away with The Affordable Health Care Act and replace it with a single-payer system that has absolutely zero chance of passing both houses of Congress. Given the way incumbents stay in power, we'll still see a significant Republican presence that will likely block all of Bernie's big promises.

It's actually expected we'll be seeing a lot of turn-over this year, mostly because of cripplingly incompetent Congress has been this year. It's sort of why the Republicans are terrified about the Supreme Court issue: they have to win the presidency AND not lose seats to block a vote. If they lose even a few seats and the Dems don't, then it doesn't matter if they win the big chair.

Apr 11, 2016#26

Hailey Knight

Turn-over is more likely during a presidential election than mid-terms because people are more likely to vote during a presidential election. What? Go out every two years? Sounds un-American.

Apr 11, 2016#27

AshburnerX

And if there is a big enough shake-up this election, there really is nothing keeping Obama from shoving a Supreme Court candidate through Congress between Jan 3rd and Jan 20th... and really, I can't think of a better way to end his term.

Apr 11, 2016#28

Dave

There's no fucking shoving of anything. His nominee should be in the SCOTUS way before January.

Apr 11, 2016#29

sixpackshaker

Or, at least vote him down before June.

But they know that this nominee would likely get past the senate.

Apr 11, 2016#30

strawman

It's an interesting game. Senators and representatives take office the third day of January, presidents the twentieth.

There is a short period of time between where Obama will be president and the new house and senate will be in place. I don't know if they'll meet, but I suppose it's possible to gamble on a switchover that might allow Obama to appoint a more liberal judge than he can possibly get with the current congress.

I doubt he'd try that, confirmation hearings and so forth take a long time, and if they're getting another democrat in the executive branch they might not care to switch over right now anyway.

Besides which, the even Supreme Court might actually be the better court anyway, letting the close calls stand with lower courts until a better case is made before the Supreme Court.

Apr 11, 2016#31

Charlie Don't Surf

I don't have a link, but I read somewhere over the weekend that Obama said in no uncertain terms that he will not be revoking/pulling back his nomination. So it's Merrick or Hillary's pick, unless the judge removes/declines the nomination sometime in between.

Apr 11, 2016#32

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't have a link, but I read somewhere over the weekend that Obama said in no uncertain terms that he will not be revoking/pulling back his nomination. So it's Merrick or Hillary's pick, unless the judge removes/declines the nomination sometime in between.

Or Sanders, or Trump, or (heaven help us all) Cruz.

Apr 11, 2016#33

Charlie Don't Surf

Dave said:
Or Sanders, or Trump, or (heaven help us all) Cruz.

No, I'm talking about who's going to be President after Obama in reality.

Apr 11, 2016#34

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
No, I'm talking about who's going to be President after Obama in reality.

In reality there's nothing certain at this point. Yes, I think you are probably correct, but you are speaking like it's a given and it's not.

Cruz - Virtually impossible at this point. He's only won 2 (or 3) states and RNC rules say that a candidate has to win at least 8 states to be able to get votes. Now, it'll be interesting to see if they change the rules before the convention to screw Trump.

Trump - The probable republican nominee. He brings a lot of baggage with him and has alienated Hispanics, Muslims, and women. Not necessarily in that order. But there are a LOT of people who like him and if Hillary is the democratic nominee, there's a lot who will vote for the other guy or stay home because of how much they despise her and her opportunistic politics.

Bernie - Right now without counting the supers, Bernie is down by about 250 delegates and has won 8 of the last 9 states. New York, California, and Pennsylvania are still coming up. Hillary is NOT the nominee yet, but of course the supers are all paid for by the Clinton Victory Fund so Bernie is fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched establishment that refuses to play on a level field because they know they'd get beaten. Bernie is only behind by a couple hundred delegates and he's doing that in the face of overwhelming odds, DNC bias against him (the head of the DNC was a Hillary staff member in the 2008 campaign and changes whatever rules necessary to help her friend), and a corporate media (strangely enough mad donors to the Clintons) that refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hillary continually obfuscates, lies, and flip-flops while propping her up as you do - giving her the nomination before she's earned it.

Apr 11, 2016#35

GasBandit

Dave said:
In reality there's nothing certain at this point. Yes, I think you are probably correct, but you are speaking like it's a given and it's not.

Cruz - Virtually impossible at this point. He's only won 2 (or 3) states and RNC rules say that a candidate has to win at least 8 states to be able to get votes. Now, it'll be interesting to see if they change the rules before the convention to screw Trump.

Trump - The probable republican nominee. He brings a lot of baggage with him and has alienated Hispanics, Muslims, and women. Not necessarily in that order. But there are a LOT of people who like him and if Hillary is the democratic nominee, there's a lot who will vote for the other guy or stay home because of how much they despise her and her opportunistic politics.

Bernie - Right now without counting the supers, Bernie is down by about 250 delegates and has won 8 of the last 9 states. New York, California, and Pennsylvania are still coming up. Hillary is NOT the nominee yet, but of course the supers are all paid for by the Clinton Victory Fund so Bernie is fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched establishment that refuses to play on a level field because they know they'd get beaten. Bernie is only behind by a couple hundred delegates and he's doing that in the face of overwhelming odds, DNC bias against him (the head of the DNC was a Hillary staff member in the 2008 campaign and changes whatever rules necessary to help her friend), and a corporate media (strangely enough mad donors to the Clintons) that refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hillary continually obfuscates, lies, and flip-flops while propping her up as you do - giving her the nomination before she's earned it.

Cruz has won 9 states.

Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. The one they're talking about "changing the rules" for is Kasich, who has only won 1 - his home state of Ohio.

Or, y'know, Mitt Romney's grand plan to shove Paul Ryan in there, like that won't cause a party revolt.

Apr 11, 2016#36

Dei

I'm pretty sure party revolt is hitting inevitability at this point.

Apr 11, 2016#37

GasBandit

Dei said:
I'm pretty sure party revolt is hitting inevitability at this point.

You're probably right. The only variable is how loud and ugly it will be. At the convention, if anyone other than Trump or Cruz is given the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if punches start getting thrown on the floor of Quicken Loans Arena.

Apr 11, 2016#38

Eriol

GasBandit said:
You're probably right. The only variable is how loud and ugly it will be. At the convention, if anyone other than Trump or Cruz is given the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if punches start getting thrown on the floor of Quicken Loans Arena.

Apr 11, 2016#39

Dei

GasBandit said:
You're probably right. The only variable is how loud and ugly it will be. At the convention, if anyone other than Trump or Cruz is given the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if punches start getting thrown on the floor of Quicken Loans Arena.

Only because they are banning guns.

Apr 11, 2016#40

sixpackshaker

I can't believe that the NRA party would hold their convention in a gun free zone. I mean it will be safer with 50,000 guns present.

Apr 11, 2016#41

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
You're probably right. The only variable is how loud and ugly it will be. At the convention, if anyone other than Trump or Cruz is given the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if punches start getting thrown on the floor of Quicken Loans Arena.

If Trump or Cruz win, you're going to see fights break out anyway. If Trump wins, the Establishment has failed it's core by letting a mad man potentially take office and letting him destroy the Republican brand in the process. If Cruz wins, the Anti-Establishment revolts, refuses to vote, and nigh guarantees a loss in November.

Apr 11, 2016#42

Krisken

Shame the Democrats don't have stronger candidates, or I'd say whoever wins the GOP nomination, we all win.

Apr 11, 2016#43

Dave

By god you're right. The map I was looking at was totally fucked. Weird. Cruz has won 9.

Apr 11, 2016#44

strawman

Krisken said:
Shame the Democrats don't have stronger candidates, or I'd say whoever wins the GOP nomination, we all win.

It would be far better if both parties had strong candidates. Instead we all get to play the game, "Who is likely to be the least bad?"

Apr 11, 2016#45

GasBandit

The republicans didn't get a say - the Secret Service said "No guns" and apparently they trump the constitution.

Apr 11, 2016#46

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
The republicans didn't get a say - the Secret Service said "No guns" and apparently they trump the constitution.

Source, for those interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/u...ans-guns-at-gop-convention-ending-debate.html

Apr 11, 2016#47

strawman

GasBandit said:
The republicans didn't get a say - the Secret Service said "No guns" and apparently they trump the constitution.

It hardly matters in such a situation. There are enough armed officers/agents/security guards at these things, not to mention on-location emergency services (ambulances and EMT crews stationed at the location during the convention) that it would be hard for anyone to successfully assault people at the convention in a mass manner. At best a few dead and a lot of wounded before the attacker gets taken down. Bombs are going to have a hard time making it in, and having a personal weapon wouldn't help against a bomber anyway.

Out of curiosity, I wonder what power the secret service has to run the convention security anyway. They may have some say over the candidates themselves, but what are they going to do - threaten that the candidates can't come to the convention if the convention doesn't meet their security? And what if the convention said, "Ok, your candidate doesn't have to be present if they can't be."? It all sounds like a big logistical legal mess to me, and picking apart the agreements vs the constitutionally protected rights of the participants wouldn't be trivial.

Apr 11, 2016#48

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
You're probably right. The only variable is how loud and ugly it will be. At the convention, if anyone other than Trump or Cruz is given the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if punches start getting thrown on the floor of Quicken Loans Arena.

At this point, I think they're hoping for a miracle.

source

--Patrick

Apr 11, 2016#49

Tress

I don't care what the poll in this thread says, I will not be voting for any of these candidates. It'll be a third party candidate, or I'm leaving the presidential section blank. I refuse to just vote for the lesser of two evils.

Now, having said all that... if you put a gun to my head, and these were my only 2 options, I will begrudgingly say that I think Hillary Clinton would do slightly less damage than Donald Trump. I think that she would have a better international presence, and his policies are too unrealistic for what actually needs to be done. That's about as good as I can hope for with these options.

Apr 11, 2016#50

Covar

Tress said:
I don't care what the poll in this thread says, I will not be voting for any of these candidates. It'll be a third party candidate, or I'm leaving the presidential section blank. I refuse to just vote for the lesser of two evils.

Now, having said all that... if you put a gun to my head, and these were my only 2 options, I will begrudgingly say that I think Hillary Clinton would do slightly less damage than Donald Trump. I think that she would have a better international presence, and his policies are too unrealistic for what actually needs to be done. That's about as good as I can hope for with these options.

I don't know, I think Trump would cause a lot more fighting between the branches.

Apr 11, 2016#51

Denbrought

stienman said:
Out of curiosity, I wonder what power the secret service has to run the convention security anyway. They may have some say over the candidates themselves, but what are they going to do - threaten that the candidates can't come to the convention if the convention doesn't meet their security? And what if the convention said, "Ok, your candidate doesn't have to be present if they can't be."? It all sounds like a big logistical legal mess to me, and picking apart the agreements vs the constitutionally protected rights of the participants wouldn't be trivial.

The candidate is free to decline protection by the Secret Service, as it's not a mandatory imposition. It is unclear whether one can waive Secret Service protection just for one event/situation, it may very well be an all-or-nothing situation (would make sense to me, otherwise the logistics could become very cumbersome). It would be quite foolish to permanently cheat yourself out of free (free as in taxpayer-funded) protection.

Source is the Secret Service's website (surprisingly good SEO):

From their page on Protection:

Protection for the President and Vice President of the United States is mandatory. All other individuals entitled to Secret Service protection may decline security if they choose.

From their FAQ:

The Secret Service DOES NOT determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection.
Under 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7), "[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidental candidates," as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.
Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for major presidential and vice presidential candidates:

Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee

The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others

Criteria have been established to assist the DHS Secretary and the advisory committee in their decision making (as of 2008). Candidates must:

Be publically announced

Have some degree of prominence as shown by opinion polls

Be actively campaigning and entered in at least 10 state primaries

Be seeking the nomination of a qualified party

Have qualified for matching funds in the amount of at least $100,000

Have received contributions totaling $10 million

Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) states that the U.S. Secret Service is also authroized to protect spouses of major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, as identified by the DHS Secretary, within 120 days of the general Presidential election. Some candidates have received protection earlier in the campaign pursuant to Presidential memoranda.

Apr 11, 2016#52

Hailey Knight

Tress said:
I don't care what the poll in this thread says, I will not be voting for any of these candidates. It'll be a third party candidate, or I'm leaving the presidential section blank. I refuse to just vote for the lesser of two evils.

You could always write-in.

Apr 11, 2016#53

bhamv3

Dave said:
In reality there's nothing certain at this point. Yes, I think you are probably correct, but you are speaking like it's a given and it's not.

Cruz - Virtually impossible at this point. He's only won 2 (or 3) states and RNC rules say that a candidate has to win at least 8 states to be able to get votes. Now, it'll be interesting to see if they change the rules before the convention to screw Trump.

Trump - The probable republican nominee. He brings a lot of baggage with him and has alienated Hispanics, Muslims, and women. Not necessarily in that order. But there are a LOT of people who like him and if Hillary is the democratic nominee, there's a lot who will vote for the other guy or stay home because of how much they despise her and her opportunistic politics.

Bernie - Right now without counting the supers, Bernie is down by about 250 delegates and has won 8 of the last 9 states. New York, California, and Pennsylvania are still coming up. Hillary is NOT the nominee yet, but of course the supers are all paid for by the Clinton Victory Fund so Bernie is fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched establishment that refuses to play on a level field because they know they'd get beaten. Bernie is only behind by a couple hundred delegates and he's doing that in the face of overwhelming odds, DNC bias against him (the head of the DNC was a Hillary staff member in the 2008 campaign and changes whatever rules necessary to help her friend), and a corporate media (strangely enough mad donors to the Clintons) that refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hillary continually obfuscates, lies, and flip-flops while propping her up as you do - giving her the nomination before she's earned it.

My impression is that Bernie's about to take an ass kicking in New York. Would that be an accurate assessment of the situation, as things look right now?

Apr 11, 2016#54

blotsfan

Yes. Sanders winning Michigan was one of the biggest upsets ever in a primary. That would be nothing compared to if he won New York.

Apr 11, 2016#55

Ravenpoe

It's because Hillary is the native New Yorker

Apr 11, 2016#56

Dei

"Native"

Apr 11, 2016#57

sixpackshaker

I love Donald ragging on Hilary about never going to the subways. I bet he can't even say what color the trains are.

Apr 11, 2016#58

GasBandit

As in, "born and raised in Chicago, and spent most of her professional life in Arkansas." She's no more a New York native than I am. As I've said before, her NY Senator seat was payback from the DNC for not divorcing Bill while he was in office, as the democrat incumbent was retiring and her republican opponent was a nobody (and she still nearly lost).

But New Yorkers drink the kool-aid as fervently as any Californian, so I expect they'll pick her as well. But I could be wrong. I can never tell what's going on in the head of people who live there.

Apr 11, 2016#59

blotsfan

You guys know theres a New York State outside the city right?

Apr 11, 2016#60

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
It's because Hillary is the native New Yorker

To be fair, those things don't always work right.

To be unfair:

Dei said:
"Native"

I remember people were pissed when she ran for Senate, but I can't remember if they were pissed when she won.

Apr 11, 2016#61

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
You guys know theres a New York State outside the city right?

Apr 11, 2016#62

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:

I can never tell if people outside New York understand this. Like, they know there's a larger state besides Manhattan, but a lot of times I've found people think it's all one giant urban sprawl. New York has a ridiculous amount of shitty backwater towns, small cities, and lots of nature.

The problem is that "upstate" ends up being considered the entire inland state, rather than what it actually means, which is Syracuse.

Apr 11, 2016#63

PatrThom

blotsfan said:
You guys know theres a New York State outside the city right?

You mean Canada?

--Patrick

Apr 11, 2016#64

blotsfan

GasBandit said:

Its true! Our property values are super cheap! I could find a nice apartment in a good area downtown for under $1000 a month!

Apr 12, 2016#65

Eriol

blotsfan said:
Its true! Our property values are super cheap! I could find a nice apartment in a good area downtown for under $1000 a month!

In all seriousness, what's the percentage of population of "greater new york but still in the state of new york" versus the rest of the state?

Apr 12, 2016#66

Charlie Don't Surf

Eriol said:
In all seriousness, what's the percentage of population of "greater new york but still in the state of new york" versus the rest of the state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Population says 2/3 in the city

May 18, 2016#67

Necronic

This is the most amazing election ever. After 8 years of Obama, one of the most liberal presidents our country has seen in decades, this election was the republican party's to lose. And they ended up putting forward Trump.

And now, with Trump as the defacto nominee, it's the Democrats election to lose. And they put forward Hillary.

I feel like this election is like going out to eat at the Golden Coral. There is a lot of variety, but everything there still tastes like ass.

May 18, 2016#68

GasBandit

Necronic said:
This is the most amazing election ever. After 8 years of Obama, one of the most liberal presidents our country has seen in decades, this election was the republican party's to lose. And they ended up putting forward Trump.

Well, to be fair, the Republican Party didn't want Trump (or Cruz, or even Rubio). They wanted Jeb Bush, or someone as close to him as possible. But the voters didn't, and the GOP doesn't have superdelegates to squash grassroots candidates.

And now, with Trump as the defacto nominee, it's the Democrats election to lose. And they put forward Hillary.

I feel like this election is like going out to eat at the Golden Coral. There is a lot of variety, but everything there still tastes like ass.

Current national polling basically has them in a dead heat. It's a testament to how weak both candidates are.

NBC says it's 48-45

Quinnepiac says that, in typical swing states, at best, it's 43-42.

Rasmussen also says they're tied.

Nate Silver, who correctly predicted the outcome in all 50 states in 2012 (but only gave Donald Trump a 5% chance of winning the GOP nomination) says Trump has a 25% chance of winning the general election.

May 18, 2016#69

jwhouk

I still think that there are more Democratic voters who would "hold their nose" and vote Hillary/whoever than there are GOP voters who'd vote Trump/Christie (or whatever).

May 18, 2016#70

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
I still think that there are more Democratic voters who would "hold their nose" and vote Hillary/whoever than there are GOP voters who'd vote Trump/Christie (or whatever).

Who knows what will happen between now and november, but right now Bernie supporters are practically waving pitchforks and carving #NeverHillary into their foreheads.

May 18, 2016#71

jwhouk

That can change with the most sensible thing Hillary could ever do in her lifetime.

Clinton/Sanders '16.

May 18, 2016#72

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
That can change with the most sensible thing Hillary could ever do in her lifetime.

Clinton/Sanders '16.

I somehow don't see that happening, to make an understatement.

May 18, 2016#73

Charlie Don't Surf

Everyone thought the Hillary is 44 people would hand the election to McCain for a while, too

May 19, 2016#74

bhamv3

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Everyone thought the Hillary is 44 people would hand the election to McCain for a while, too

... what?

EDIT: Oh I get it now, "Hillary is 44" is an organization. Man, that sentence is hard to parse if you didn't know that.

May 19, 2016#75

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
"No third parties, no "not voting"" restricts the options more than the actual election. Even if I could vote, I'd vote for neither.

There's another, more final solution:

--Patrick

May 19, 2016#76

Gruebeard

bhamv3 said:
... what?

EDIT: Oh I get it now, "Hillary is 44" is an organization. Man, that sentence is hard to parse if you didn't know that.

I was gonna reply with "Has Hillary really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?'

May 19, 2016#77

Zappit

Gruebeard said:
I was gonna reply with "Has Hillary really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?'

See, now THAT I understand.

May 19, 2016#78

jwhouk

GasBandit said:
I somehow don't see that happening, to make an understatement.

Ahem.

May 19, 2016#79

bhamv3

jwhouk said:
Ahem.

So... I guess this will then lead to the uncomfortable question of just how far Bernie's supporters are willing to go to make him President.

May 19, 2016#80

blotsfan

I'd be very surprised if that happened. Sanders supporters are talking a big game, but I think when its time to pull that lever, most will hold their nose and vote for Hillary.

May 19, 2016#81

PatrThom

bhamv3 said:
So... I guess this will then lead to the uncomfortable question of just how far Bernie's supporters are willing to go to make him President.

Remember, remember, the 8th of November...

--Patrick

May 19, 2016#82

strawman

blotsfan said:
I'd be very surprised if that happened. Sanders supporters are talking a big game, but I think when its time to pull that lever, most will hold their nose and vote for Hillary.

There's going to be over three months between the convention and the election, and during that time the entire democratic party will be going, "We can't let trump win!" so I expect there will be many who now say they cannot or will not vote for Hillary but when the time comes they'll pull the lever.

May 20, 2016#83

Dei

stienman said:
There's going to be over three months between the convention and the election, and during that time the entire democratic party will be going, "We can't let trump win!" so I expect there will be many who now say they cannot or will not vote for Hillary but when the time comes they'll pull the lever.

A big part of the Sanders movement are independents who only registered to vote for Bernie, which is why they are so adamant about not "falling in line."

May 20, 2016#84

jwhouk

That is why Hillary/Sanders works. Hil gets her shot at the Oval Office and brings in her part of the Democratic Party Machine; Sanders gets to sit one heartbeat away and brings in his constituency, the Dems roll into the fall with a "We are NOT TRUMP" message, and we get our first female president.

Right now if I were HRC's camp, I'd be doing as much olive branching as I could to Sanders.

May 20, 2016#85

Bubble181

Dei said:
A big part of the Sanders movement are independents who only registered to vote for Bernie, which is why they are so adamant about not "falling in line."

Also, expecting the left to just hold their nose and vote for Clinton is like expecting the right to hold their nose and vote for Romney...or McCain.

I'm not sure Clinton/Sanders'll work, honestly. It has potential, but the two bases have been quite polarized against one another. We'll see. I could easily see her going the other way and taking a fairly right/conservative VP to try and attract illusive "moderate Republican" or "honest right wing" voter who might think a center-right Dem ticket is better than D Trump/I Trump (or whoever he puts in as VP).

May 20, 2016#86

Eriol

It'd never (I think) happen, but Trump/Sanders could be hilarious to see on who and which bases where.

May 20, 2016#87

AshburnerX

Sanders would never take VP. He'd be better able to support his issues as a Senator than as VP... and it's not like he's Al Gore, where he needed to be VP to get to that level.

May 29, 2016#88

redthirtyone

May 29, 2016#89

PatrThom

Hello, 1979 calling.

--Patrick

Jun 10, 2016#90

strawman

Jun 10, 2016#91

strawman

Here's an interesting take on why one might support Hillary over Bernie:

http://www.chicagonow.com/becoming-supermommy/2016/02/love-sanders-but-why-im-supporting-hillary/

It's a rant, but the meat in the middle is worth consideration.

Jun 14, 2016#92

Ravenpoe

Jun 14, 2016#93

GasBandit

Gary Johnson: Not afraid to say "fuck" on national television.

Jun 14, 2016#94

Terrik

GasBandit said:
Gary Johnson: Not afraid to say "fuck" on national television.

I bet he'll day it again on the day he concedes.

Jun 14, 2016#95

GasBandit

Terrik said:
I bet he'll day it again on the day he concedes.

Like I always say, if he even does well enough to have to be let into the debates, I'll call it a victory.

Jun 14, 2016#96

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Gary Johnson: Not afraid to say "fuck" on national television.

He damn well knows what the watershed is.

Jun 16, 2016#97

DarkAudit

A British MP was assassinated today by a gun and knife toting man screaming "BRITAIN FIRST!" Guess who is making "AMERICA FIRST!" his new campaign slogan. The slogan that was used by Nazi sympathizers prior to WW II.

I'll just go right out and say this. If you are a Trump supporter, I want nothing to do with you. I don't want you near me or my family. You are no friend of mine. You are not even an acquaintance. In short, go fuck yourself.

And those who planned on voting Trump because he's "not Hillary," what the fuck is wrong with you? Write in that dog turd you nearly stepped in on the way to the polling place. Anything but him.

Jun 16, 2016#98

sixpackshaker

There is also a Britain First movement in social media. They are basically the Facebook and Twitter feed for the Nationalists.

Jun 16, 2016#99

Ravenpoe

DarkAudit said:
I'll just go right out and say this. If you are a Trump supporter, I want nothing to do with you. I don't want you near me or my family. You are no friend of mine. You are not even an acquaintance. In short, go fuck yourself.

Well that seems a bit extreme.

Jun 16, 2016#100

DarkAudit

Ravenpoe said:
Well that seems a bit extreme.

And assassinating an MP isn't? Their twitter feed is full of "she deserved it" and "she was a traitor" type posts. The Trump supporters aren't too far removed from that point of view. That's dangerous, and I don't want those types of dangerous people anywhere near anyone I care about.

Jun 16, 2016#101

Dave

So we're blaming an entire group because of the actions of one guy? It's not the Trump supporters who are being violent. I'm a Bernie guy (still) but you gotta call things as they are. There's a lot to dislike about Hillary. A LOT! So someone voting for Trump instead is a legitimate protest. Look, I think the guy would be a fucking disaster. But he's the nominee and people will vote for him. Doesn't make them bad people, doesn't make them stupid. Maybe a tad myopic, but who isn't to some extent?

If someone from the other side spouted this kind of rhetoric, you'd be all over them.

Jun 16, 2016#102

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
And assassinating an MP isn't? Their twitter feed is full of "she deserved it" and "she was a traitor" type posts. The Trump supporters aren't too far removed from that point of view. That's dangerous, and I don't want those types of dangerous people anywhere near anyone I care about.

And by this logic, Hillary supporters aren't too far removed from Che Guevara's point of view, and should be viewed with similar levels of wariness to what would be appropriate for violent, murderous revolutionaries?

Jun 16, 2016#103

Ravenpoe

DarkAudit said:
And assassinating an MP isn't? Their twitter feed is full of "she deserved it" and "she was a traitor" type posts. The Trump supporters aren't too far removed from that point of view. That's dangerous, and I don't want those types of dangerous people anywhere near anyone I care about.

Assassination is certainly extreme, but I'm pretty sure the person that did that wasn't a Trump supporter, what with, you know, being British. I just think you're painting in very broad strokes here, saying that anyone that would vote for Trump is someone that would want to assassinate people in cold blood. I don't exactly have any statistics for it, but I'm pretty confident that the majority of people that will vote for Trump probably aren't murderers.

Jun 16, 2016#104

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
And by this logic, Hillary supporters aren't too far removed from Che Guevara's point of view, and should be viewed with similar levels of wariness to what would be appropriate for violent, murderous revolutionaries?

Hillary supporters aren't attacking people at rallies. No. Only Trump gives you Brownshirt levels of political violence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jun 16, 2016#105

GasBandit

Dave said:
It's not the Trump supporters who are being violent.

Trump opposers definitely seem to not be shy about attacking people on the street.[DOUBLEPOST=1466110462,1466110439][/DOUBLEPOST]

DarkAudit said:
Hillary supporters aren't attacking people at rallies. No. Only Trump gives you Brownshirt levels of political violence.

I'm guessing you haven't been watching the news the last few weeks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/

Jun 16, 2016#106

Dave

Both sides have used violence. Why? Maybe the levels of hyperbolic rhetoric?

Jun 16, 2016#107

GasBandit

Dave said:
Both sides have used violence. Why? Maybe the levels of hyperbolic rhetoric?

Because the country has never been so divided since the end of the Civil War, and both sides are a whisper away from openly accusing the other of treason.

At least, that's my two cents.

Jun 16, 2016#108

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
Both sides have used violence. Why? Maybe the levels of hyperbolic rhetoric?

Because politics in our country are fucked, and everything is to the level of "this is the most important thing in the world and anyone that doesn't agree 100% is the devil"

Jun 16, 2016#109

jwhouk

The "Britain First" movement is part of the whole "Brexit" campaign, regarding the UK's proposed exit from the European Union.

If I am reading it right from sources I have over in GB, this lady was a supporter of remaining in the EU.

Both sides have suspended their campaign for the moment. I'm not sure what that will mean for the decision.

Jun 16, 2016#110

AshburnerX

I'll admit that I don't know the issue as well as some in Britain does... but they do understand that if Britain leaves the EU, it's essentially dooming the rest of the EU to collapse, right? Germany's not going to stick around if Britain isn't and the EU can't function without Germany's income or it's economic leadership. It would be a continent wide economic depression for years.

What exactly is Britain hoping to get out of this? Some domestic jobs returning to Britain workers? To cut immigration? They haven't exactly been doing too hot since the 80's.

Regardless, the EU is basically doomed to collapse anyway. The US works as a republic because we were founded as one... the EU is made up of dozens of countries with thousands of years of history that have their own national identities, languages, cultures, and issues. It's one thing for New York, California, and Texas to subsidize the Midwest and South because we're all ostensibly part of the same culture, but it's something entirely different for Germany and Britain to be doing the same for Greece. There is just no shared political or cultural connection between these countries to give them incentive to work through the issues.

Jun 16, 2016#111

Bubble181

The danger of a brexit is other small countries leaving and instability, the chances of Germany leaving are laughably small. They've conquered Europe and control everything. The french-german ax has lost its strength because of the French unwillingness to lead in change, the British have always been a brake on the eu rather than a power to move forward. Getting rid of the UK, Poland and some other US vassals might lead a core Europe forward towards a federation, faster.

Jun 16, 2016#112

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
The danger of a brexit is other small countries leaving and instability, the chances of Germany leaving are laughably small. They've conquered Europe and control everything. The french-german ax has lost its strength because of the French unwillingness to lead in change, the British have always been a brake on the eu rather than a power to move forward. Getting rid of the UK, Poland and some other US vassals might lead a core Europe forward towards a federation, faster.

True. Ultimately though, Germany's power only exists as long as the EU exists. Reducing the number of states in the EU is only to it's advantage unless they all leave shortly after each other, as it gives it's economy more weight in the whole and makes it's decisions harder to override. But it still needs the vassal states to maintain the union.

Jun 17, 2016#113

Charlie Don't Surf

i couldn't contain myself and made another thread on the topic, but yeah, i p much agree at this point anyone still voting trump is either dangerously evil or dangerously stupid

Jul 7, 2016#114

strawman

Clinton's most recent statements on Snowden: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-edward-snowden

Here's further analysis about whether whistle-blower protections could have been a better choice, as Clinton suggested: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-says-nsa-leaker-snowden-failed-use-whistle/

Jul 7, 2016#115

Chad Sexington

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I completely and honestly hope President Clinton gives Snowden a full pardon and he returns to America and is hailed as the hero he is.

https://20committee.com/2016/07/02/the-kremlin-admits-snowden-is-a-russian-agent/

Jul 7, 2016#116

Charlie Don't Surf

I don't blame him for doing what he had to to survive with the entire western military industrial complex openly trying to kill him. What he did was still heroic and made the country a marginally better place.

Jul 7, 2016#117

GasBandit

Chad Sexington said:
https://20committee.com/2016/07/02/the-kremlin-admits-snowden-is-a-russian-agent/

That blogger is grade-A tinfoil hat.

Jul 7, 2016#118

Fun Size

GasBandit said:
That blogger is grade-A tinfoil hat.

I opened the tab and searched the page for "illuminati". Not found.

Grade-B tinfoil hat at best.

Jul 7, 2016#119

Chad Sexington

GasBandit said:
That blogger is grade-A tinfoil hat.

That's really not the impression I get from his tone, credentials or other published work.

Jul 7, 2016#120

GasBandit

Chad Sexington said:
That's really not the impression I get from his tone, credentials or other published work.

I didn't see any credentials, or even an author by-line, anywhere on that blog post.

Jul 7, 2016#121

Chad Sexington

GasBandit said:
I didn't see any credentials, or even an author by-line, anywhere on that blog post.

Here's his About section: https://20committee.com/about/

If you follow the links/look him up independently, his qualifications seem to check out.

Jul 23, 2016#122

DarkAudit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
i couldn't contain myself and made another thread on the topic, but yeah, i p much agree at this point anyone still voting trump is either dangerously evil or dangerously stupid

After this week of relentless fearmongering, even more so.

And still waiting for someone to actually defend the RNC. Without "but... but... but... HILLARY!"

(yeah, I've stolen GB's line. It's useful.

)

Jul 23, 2016#123

Hailey Knight

I saw a video where someone held up a sign that said "No Racism, No Hate" and people tried to steal it/cover it up. Why? Whatever actions of racism taken by Republicans in the past, they've at least denied it. I guess they feel they can't now that racism and hate are among their candidate's major platforms? But hypocrisy never seemed to bother them before either.

In any case, tag your family. Mine's #DangerouslyStupid

Jul 23, 2016#124

DarkAudit

Zero Esc said:
I saw a video where someone held up a sign that said "No Racism, No Hate" and people tried to steal it/cover it up. Why? Whatever actions of racism taken by Republicans in the past, they've at least denied it. I guess they feel they can't now that racism and hate are among their candidate's major platforms? But hypocrisy never seemed to bother them before either.

In any case, tag your family. Mine's #DangerouslyStupid

Mine's #NoFuckingWayNoFuckingHowNeverInAMillionYearsTrump (just counting me, my mom, and my sister here)

Mom got moved out of her first room at the nursing home almost immediately because the other person was hooked on Fox Noise. Couldn't have that.

Jul 23, 2016#125

Ravenpoe

Zero Esc said:
I saw a video where someone held up a sign that said "No Racism, No Hate" and people tried to steal it/cover it up. Why? Whatever actions of racism taken by Republicans in the past, they've at least denied it. I guess they feel they can't now that racism and hate are among their candidate's major platforms? But hypocrisy never seemed to bother them before either.

In any case, tag your family. Mine's #DangerouslyStupid

Because the sign was accusing them of being hateful racists. And I'm pretty sure most of them probably aren't. I don't agree with, well, pretty much anything that Trump says, but it's not at all a mystery to me why people in the crowd would take offense to that sign. And the protester herself knew they would, it was the purpose of the protest.

Remember, gross polarization and us vs them is a bad thing, on both sides. I think you do yourself a grave disservice to assume that everyone there is a racist bigot that wants to hang black trans liberals for using the wrong bathroom while ordering a wedding cake. That sort of over simplification and the assumption that any support Trump has must be from the hateful fringe is what lead us to where we are now.

Jul 23, 2016#126

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
Because the sign was accusing them of being hateful racists. And I'm pretty sure most of them probably aren't. I don't agree with, well, pretty much anything that Trump says, but it's not at all a mystery to me why people in the crowd would take offense to that sign. And the protester herself knew they would, it was the purpose of the protest.

Remember, gross polarization and us vs them is a bad thing, on both sides. I think you do yourself a grave disservice to assume that everyone there is a racist bigot that wants to hang black trans liberals for using the wrong bathroom while ordering a wedding cake. That sort of over simplification and the assumption that any support Trump has must be from the hateful fringe is what lead us to where we are now.

Well that's why I noted my family members as being the stupid side of Trump supporters. They're not evil racist bigot wedding cakes; they're just among the voters who have zero understanding of anything going on in the U.S. right now, but like Trump because he's loud and entertains them.

But as for the protestor, it'd be easy for a smart person on the Republican side to take that message and hold up their own sign (maybe not glittery pink) that says the same thing, capitalizing on it as a statement they agree with. Cloud the issue with positive white noise, even when the actions of Trump's platform contradict that message.

Jul 23, 2016#127

Anonymous

Ravenpoe said:
there is a racist bigot that wants to hang black trans liberals for using the wrong bathroom while ordering a wedding cake.

Jul 23, 2016#128

PatrThom

Anonymous said:

He's missing the little campaign button.

--Patrick

Jul 23, 2016#129

Gruebeard

My Photoshop skills are horrible.

Jul 23, 2016#130

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
My Photoshop skills are horrible.

Hey, all I did was a 90° rotate of the French flag with a circle crop and the text added in.

--Patrick

Jul 23, 2016#131

Gruebeard

Okay, what I really meant was that my Photoshop motivation is negligible.

Jul 23, 2016#132

GasBandit

Jul 23, 2016#133

DarkAudit

Because if you idiots Nader this election again...

Jul 24, 2016#134

Charlie Don't Surf

again, making a false equivalency between Trump and Clinton is either deliberately evil or immensely stupid

Jul 24, 2016#135

Denbrought

Charlie Don't Surf said:
again, making a false equivalency between Trump and Clinton is either deliberately evil or immensely stupid

But making a false dichotomy is not?

Jul 24, 2016#136

DarkAudit

If you did a survey of households asking if they kept a cable news channel on all day, if so which one, and who they planned on voting for, I'd bet you'd find the channel and the candidate's numbers roughly equal. Not counting outliers like BBC World News.

[DOUBLEPOST=1469342771,1469342667][/DOUBLEPOST]

Denbrought said:
But making a false dichotomy is not?

There is the tendency (of which I am admittedly guilty) of any attack on someone's preferred side to get the response, "the other one did it first/worse."

Jul 24, 2016#137

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
again, making a false equivalency between Trump and Clinton is either deliberately evil or immensely stupid

Really, they're actually pretty equivalent.

Jul 24, 2016#138

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Really, they're actually pretty equivalent.

I don't see where Hillary or the Democrats are fearmongering on the level of the GOP. Where does she call for the mass deportations of Mexicans or Muslims? Where does she call for a religious test to enter the country? Where does she PUBLICLY (there's a difference, you've been splitting this hair the entire cycle) call for the targeting of civilians to fight terrorism?

Have the Democrats publicly repudiated the NATO alliance? Publicly declared admiration for mass-murdering dictators. To the point of wanting journalists who disagree with them locked up? Called for jailing of political opponents?

If you're not going to disagree with saying the GOP have Godwin'd themselves, then show me where the Dems have.

Jul 24, 2016#139

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
I don't see where Hillary or the Democrats are fearmongering on the level of the GOP. Where does she call for the mass deportations of Mexicans or Muslims? Where does she call for a religious test to enter the country? Where does she PUBLICLY (there's a difference, you've been splitting this hair the entire cycle) call for the targeting of civilians to fight terrorism?

Have the Democrats publicly repudiated the NATO alliance? Publicly declared admiration for mass-murdering dictators. To the point of wanting journalists who disagree with them locked up? Called for jailing of political opponents?

If you're not going to disagree with saying the GOP have Godwin'd themselves, then show me where the Dems have.

Both Hillary and Trump say whatever they think will get them power. Trump panders to the dumb right, Hillary panders to the dumb left. What they actually believe, beyond the desire to increase their own power, wealth, and influence, is buried under dozens of layers of dissembling and political rhetoric that may have little or no correlation to their own actions. They are equivalent in that regard, and 10 years ago you'd have been hard pressed to tell them apart, politically. As has been repeatedly pointed out, both of them are such terrible candidates that the only reason they stand a chance is because of who their opponent is.

(And yes, Democrats have publicly and repeatedly shown admiration for murderous dictators, such as Castro, Guevara, Mao, Chavez, etc.)

Also, I don't think you remember what "godwin'd" means... it means whoever first makes the comparison in the argument, who says "that's like Hitler!" So really, you're the one who has godwin'd yourself.

Jul 24, 2016#140

Hailey Knight

DarkAudit said:
I don't see where Hillary or the Democrats are fearmongering on the level of the GOP.

Sure they have. "Vote for us or Trump will be president." How much more fear can one mong?

Jul 24, 2016#141

Charlie Don't Surf

hillary has 30, maybe 40 years of public service and writing policy and speeches and rhetoric to tell you exactly what she believes, at almost every level and arena of the federal government

trump has never been elected nor appointed to dogcatcher, nor ever made any action recorded in his long life that wasn't meant to make him more money and fuck over every person on earth not named Trump (actually he's raped at least one person named Trump, so that's not even true)

Jul 24, 2016#142

Dei

I mean, Trump('s social media people) posts stuff like this to his Twitter, I know of no bigger ego.

Jul 24, 2016#143

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
hillary has 30, maybe 40 years of public service and writing policy and speeches and rhetoric to tell you exactly what she believes, at almost every level and arena of the federal government

Hillary has had 30, maybe 40 years of personal enrichment through scandal-ridden politics which taught her that belief is unimportant, and a good speech just tells the proles what they want to hear, while personally often doing the opposite of what she professes. Seriously, as often as she plays the "war on women" card, she's personally crushed the lives of more women (her husband's dalliances) and quite possibly is the accomplice/enabler/coverup artist for a bona fide rapist (same). Every position she's held in government was a political payoff, starting with her Senate seat in New York for not divorcing Bill in the 90s, through her secretary of state consolation prize for having to postpone her anointment to the presidency behind Obama. She probably hasn't spoken a true word in front of a camera since Bill's gubernatorial run.

trump has never been elected nor appointed to dogcatcher, nor ever made any action recorded in his long life that wasn't meant to make him more money and fuck over every person on earth not named Trump

Prior to 2000, the same was true for Hillary. She just got to politics sooner because she didn't have an inheritance to squander, first.

Trump is a horrible person, and a horrible presidential candidate, and if the world was a just place, he would probably be rotting in prison.
Hillary is a horrible person, and a horrible presidential candidate, and if the world was a just place, she would probably be rotting in prison.

Jul 24, 2016#144

Charlie Don't Surf

trump becoming president would immediately cause a crisis worse than brexit and probably worse than anything that's happened to the country short of pearl harbor or the civil war.

hillary becoming president would change nothing really.

they're not the same thing. not even close. you can write all the sentences where they have similar verbs and adjectives and clauses, but you're still completely wrong

Jul 24, 2016#145

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
trump becoming president would immediately cause a crisis worse than brexit and probably worse than anything that's happened to the country short of pearl harbor or the civil war.

hillary becoming president would change nothing really.

they're not the same thing. not even close. you can write all the sentences where they have similar verbs and adjectives and clauses, but you're still completely wrong

You're a complete and utter fool, and I continue to take solace that I'm correct whenever you disagree with me.

Neither Hillary nor Trump becoming president will make them dictators, congress will still be a thing.

But if you want a real scare, just imagine how terrible whoever the next pair of career criminals the major parties dredge up in 4-8 years to top the current crop.

Jul 24, 2016#146

Hailey Knight

I heard 80+ percent of Congress is up for re-election and/or ousting. Is that true?

Jul 24, 2016#147

AshburnerX

Zero Esc said:
I heard 80+ percent of Congress is up for re-election and/or ousting. Is that true?

I don't know if it's 80% but it's A LOT.

Jul 24, 2016#148

Covar

Zero Esc said:
I heard 80+ percent of Congress is up for re-election and/or ousting. Is that true?

100% of the House and 33% of the Senate. Its always the same every 2 years. Which is around 87% of Congress, but again that happens every election cycle so don't let talking heads and idiotic Facebook posts fear monger you with it.

Jul 24, 2016#149

Hailey Knight

Covar said:
100% of the House and 33% of the Senate. Its always the same every 2 years.

Didn't know the Senate was always like that. The comment made it sound like 80% of the Senate seats were up for grabs (I wish).

Jul 24, 2016#150

GasBandit

What Covar said. 100% of the House is up for reelection every 2 years, and the senate rotates a third every two years (as they have six year terms). Same as always.

Now, how that gets interpreted as "80% up for grabs" is a little dishonest, and ignores the fact that incumbents almost always get re-elected. People don't like "congress" but they think their own congressman/senator is the one good one in the bunch.

Jul 25, 2016#151

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
What Covar said. 100% of the House is up for reelection every 2 years, and the senate rotates a third every two years (as they have six year terms). Same as always.

Now, how that gets interpreted as "80% up for grabs" is a little dishonest, and ignores the fact that incumbents almost always get re-elected. People don't like "congress" but they think their own congressman/senator is the one good one in the bunch.

The Democratic candidate for my district ran unopposed in the primary. He'll face the incumbent in November. No senate race here this year. Not that either is worth a damn.

As the "Blue Dogs" gradually go extinct, this state is going hard red. Thanks to an old and uneducated electorate, fed a steady diet of talk radio, Fox Noise, and "War on Coal."

The young ones who can get out are, as fast as they possibly can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jul 25, 2016#152

Bubble181

Charlie Don't Surf said:
trump becoming president would immediately cause a crisis worse than brexit and probably worse than anything that's happened to the country short of pearl harbor or the civil war.

hillary becoming president would change nothing really.

they're not the same thing. not even close. you can write all the sentences where they have similar verbs and adjectives and clauses, but you're still completely wrong

The world is rapidly changing and spiraling - Erdogan, Brexit and the (for now) slow unraveling of the EU, Putin, the migration crisis, the climate crisis, the economy that is still suffering from the mistakes from the late '90s and early aughts,.... The liberal dream of globalization, and the left answer of different globalization, have failed. Exporting Liberty, Justice, Reality TV and McDonalds to all corners of the world and making everything a Happy Place hasn't worked. We're faced with the return of right wing nationalism, not just in the US where it never really went away (oh sorry, I meant "patriotism"), but in Europe, too, and in some of the seemingly-more-advanced Middle Eastern nations, and across central Asia. NATO is falling apart, China has established control in most of Africa, Russia is busily claiming most of Asia, Western Europe is collapsing in a combination of debt, age and failed integration of immigrants and lack of environmental control.
What the Western world needs is strong leadership, vision, a new pact, a new dream.
What we get is either a quick descent into madness, or (at least) 4 more years of the Same Old Recipes that have already failed and are part of the problem, not the solution. Hillary won't be the one to usher in a new age of hope and prosperity. She's the biggest defender of the establishment, a last gasp of a dying oligarchy trying to make the most of their power as it lasts.
Both will leave the world a worse place than they found it. Which particular brand of Crapsack World we'll end up in might differ, but I'm not entirely convinced the very hard and rough Boot to the Balls wake up call of a Trump presidency might, in the long run, not be a better thing for the Western world than the slow festering of a Hillary presidency.

I'll gladly agree Trump is a worse person and a worse presidential candidate than Clinton. I'm sure she'll do less harm in the short term. I'm sure neither is what you or we need. As long as Trump is kept somewhat in check by Congress, though, he might actually change some things and force people to rethink some "common sense truths" about US politics. A rupture on both parties into a 4 or 5 party system would really help matters, for example.

Jul 25, 2016#153

DarkAudit

Hillary/Humphrey, Trump/Nixon. Is this the biggest "fuck you" election since 1968?

At least no major candidate was assassinated this time. And there's no Wallace to throw a wrench into things.

Jul 25, 2016#154

Frank

So how about all that hubub about Trump being in unbelievable debt to Russian oligarchs.

With his recent change of stance on NATO and Ukraine (a U-turn for the Republican party) it's beginning to look a little frightening.

Jul 25, 2016#155

DarkAudit

Frank said:
So how about all that hubub about Trump being in unbelievable debt to Russian oligarchs.

With his recent remarks about NATO and Ukraine (a U-turn for the Republican party) it's beginning to look a little frightening.

What's all the hubbub, bub?

No, really. This is the first I've heard of it. If true, they're calling the wrong candidate traitor. Or potential traitor.

Jul 25, 2016#156

Frank

DarkAudit said:
What's all the hubbub, bub?

No, really. This is the first I've heard of it. If true, they're calling the wrong candidate traitor. Or potential traitor.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

Jul 25, 2016#157

Charlie Don't Surf

It doesn't matter. Trump's voters will never read it. Those of us with any sort of education and interest in things like facts can't vote any harder than we are already. Nothing matters.

Jul 25, 2016#158

Dave

Not that I don't believe a blog on the internet, but don't you think this is the kind of thing that would have been mentioned by the dems? Seriously, if it's that bad why wouldn't they trot this out?

The only reason I can think of is a tin-foil hat conspiracy that says either Trump has enough on Hillary that neither one wants to pull the trigger (mutually assured destruction kind of thing) or they agreed to be nice. They are friends of a sort.

Jul 25, 2016#159

Frank

Dave said:
Not that I don't believe a blog on the internet, but don't you think this is the kind of thing that would have been mentioned by the dems? Seriously, if it's that bad why wouldn't they trot this out?

The only reason I can think of is a tin-foil hat conspiracy that says either Trump has enough on Hillary that neither one wants to pull the trigger (mutually assured destruction kind of thing) or they agreed to be nice. They are friends of a sort.

It's a blog that uses multiple sources. He draws some big conclusions but there's a lot there.

Jul 25, 2016#160

Eriol

Frank said:
It's a blog that uses multiple sources. He draws some big conclusions but there's a lot there.

I acknowledge that conspiracy is always possible, but I evaluate Putin's actions under the lens of "Does it advance what I want? I'm going to do it." And for him, he doesn't like Hillary. So he'll do whatever he can to advance Trump. And that's it. He doesn't NEED collaboration. And Trump, assuming he even knows about this would be FAR better off to just do nothing. Putin going after his biggest opponent? Go nuts!

Don't assume that because two people's goals align that they are in cahoots. Especially if the penalty for being found out is huge. May as well just each play their own game. Very similar to how Gasoline prices are always in sync. They don't NEED to be in cahoots if they are all acting in self-interest that aligns with everybody else's self-interest.

Jul 25, 2016#161

Charlie Don't Surf

Some of Trump's pre-election tweets blatantly sucking up to Putin and begging for a scrap of attention would be more funny than terrifying if he wasn't close to being elected President.

Jul 25, 2016#162

Frank

Eriol said:
I acknowledge that conspiracy is always possible, but I evaluate Putin's actions under the lens of "Does it advance what I want? I'm going to do it." And for him, he doesn't like Hillary. So he'll do whatever he can to advance Trump. And that's it. He doesn't NEED collaboration. And Trump, assuming he even knows about this would be FAR better off to just do nothing. Putin going after his biggest opponent? Go nuts!

Don't assume that because two people's goals align that they are in cahoots. Especially if the penalty for being found out is huge. May as well just each play their own game. Very similar to how Gasoline prices are always in sync. They don't NEED to be in cahoots if they are all acting in self-interest that aligns with everybody else's self-interest.

Even without the conspiracy stuff, why would anyone in their right mind want someone who's entire business and livelihood NEEDS Russia that badly to stay afloat in charge of their nation?

Jul 25, 2016#163

Necronic

I'm sorry but trump is a fucking garbage person. I really don't see any need to dress that up and fill it out, it's self evident to anyone who hasn't intentionally blinded themselves. And I'm not saying that Clinton isn't a god damned terrible candidate herself. But at least she won't drive this country off a cliff with a smug grin while jerking himself off with the constitution.[DOUBLEPOST=1469475766,1469475283][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, following the Putin stuff, it's worth mentioning that Trump supporters have a tendency to prefer authorotarians.

A big warm daddy for a party of cowards.

Jul 25, 2016#164

MindDetective

Bubble181 said:
The world is rapidly changing and spiraling - Erdogan, Brexit and the (for now) slow unraveling of the EU, Putin, the migration crisis, the climate crisis, the economy that is still suffering from the mistakes from the late '90s and early aughts,.... The liberal dream of globalization, and the left answer of different globalization, have failed. Exporting Liberty, Justice, Reality TV and McDonalds to all corners of the world and making everything a Happy Place hasn't worked. We're faced with the return of right wing nationalism, not just in the US where it never really went away (oh sorry, I meant "patriotism"), but in Europe, too, and in some of the seemingly-more-advanced Middle Eastern nations, and across central Asia. NATO is falling apart, China has established control in most of Africa, Russia is busily claiming most of Asia, Western Europe is collapsing in a combination of debt, age and failed integration of immigrants and lack of environmental control.

We didn't start the fire!

Jul 25, 2016#165

strawman

MindDetective said:
We didn't start the fire!

We didn't light it but we're typing on keyboards pretending to fight it!

Jul 25, 2016#166

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I'm sorry but trump is a fucking garbage person. I really don't see any need to dress that up and fill it out, it's self evident to anyone who hasn't intentionally blinded themselves. And I'm not saying that Clinton isn't a god damned terrible candidate herself. But at least she won't drive this country off a cliff with a smug grin while jerking himself off with the constitution.[DOUBLEPOST=1469475766,1469475283][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, following the Putin stuff, it's worth mentioning that Trump supporters have a tendency to prefer authorotarians.

A big warm daddy for a party of cowards.

Every time.

Jul 25, 2016#167

Necronic

We do say that, and it's true. Because he is insanely dangerous

Jul 25, 2016#168

Gruebeard

Trump is gonna win this election.

I'm calling it now.

Jul 25, 2016#169

Denbrought

Gruebeard said:
Trump is gonna win this election.

I'm calling it now.

Well, get on PredictIt and make two thousand bucks.

Jul 25, 2016#170

Gruebeard

Denbrought said:
Well, get on PredictIt and make two thousand bucks.

I don't bet on football, I ain't betting on this.

So I guess you called my bluff.

. . .

Yahtzee!

Jul 25, 2016#171

GasBandit

I don't think so, personally. I could be wrong, but the post convention bump wasn't big enough for Trump (even though it put him a few percentage points ahead of Hillary), the democrat conviction.. er, convention, heh, sorry, freudian slip... bump will put her back over, and things will get ugly and stupid for a few months, but unless the October Surprise is an indictment (which won't happen even if she murders someone live on national TV because laws don't apply to the ruling class), I think the story will be something more like Hillary wins 40-35 or so.
I just hope some of the missing 25% makes the 15% libertarians need to get in on the debates.

Jul 25, 2016#172

Tress

Jul 25, 2016#173

Charlie Don't Surf

you don't want the libertarians to make the debates since gary johnson will embarrass the party way more than any of their moronic policies ever could

Jul 25, 2016#174

Zappit

Donald Trump will get fucking destroyed during the national debates. He's promised to protect parts of the constitution that don't actually exist, praised multiple authoritarian leaders/monsters for their "leadership", and resorts to cheap, childish name-calling when he can't answer a question. Never mind the fact that he changes his positions more often than a sex-addicted couple working through the Kama-Sutra. People will see just how dangerously incompetent he really is, and the Cult of Trump will prove to be less than yoooooge.

I think the Dems are biding their time with the Russia ties until the debate. More evidence will come out, and I'm sure they're investigating those links themselves. They're saving that one for the days closer to the election. If a Trump keeps playing the e-mail card, they'll have the potential traitor card to play.

Funny how that's the one conspiracy Trump can't get behind.

Jul 26, 2016#175

Charlie Don't Surf

Zappit said:
Donald Trump will get fucking destroyed during the national debates. .

probably not. the bar is so low for him that all he has to do is not call hillary a [insert your favorite slur], and the media will fall over themselves to say it was a spirited tie. also he'll say his greatest hits and BUILD A WALL and 42% of the american voting public will say he won

with literally any two candidates on earth, someone would have to shit their pants and throw it at the moderator for the debate "results" to not be X wins 1, Y wins 2, 3rd is a draw. also "debates" aren't debates at all, they're always two people saying stump speeches in the same room while a moderator asks questions for them to blithely ignore

Jul 26, 2016#176

Bubble181

I doubt it. Hillary's a better debater than most of what the Republicans had to offer, but still - a large part of Trump's support comes from people who are anti-intellectual enough to not care, and people who are confirmed in their beliefs enough that any "proof" offered by the other side will be fabricated, slurs, or filthy liberal media lies.

Jul 26, 2016#177

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
probably not. the bar is so low for him that all he has to do is not call hillary a [insert your favorite slur], and the media will fall over themselves to say it was a spirited tie. also he'll say his greatest hits and BUILD A WALL and 42% of the american voting public will say he won

with literally any two candidates on earth, someone would have to shit their pants and throw it at the moderator for the debate "results" to not be X wins 1, Y wins 2, 3rd is a draw. also "debates" aren't debates at all, they're always two people saying stump speeches in the same room while a moderator asks questions for them to blithely ignore

Much as I hate to do so, I have to grant you've got a few points here. What Zappit is saying here about Trump in the debates is the same thing everybody has been saying about Trump every step of the way. It just never seems to matter. Additionally, debates are generally unsatisfying at best and occasionally a complete joke.

Jul 26, 2016#178

jwhouk

Trump : Russia :: Hillary : China?

Jul 26, 2016#179

DarkAudit

As much as the right wants to make of the unrepentant Bernie supporters, reliable sources say it's only about 5 very loud people from the CA delegation.

Jul 26, 2016#180

Charlie Don't Surf

DarkAudit said:
As much as the right wants to make of the unrepentant Bernie supporters, reliable sources say it's only about 5 very loud people from the CA delegation.

also, another big poll came out saying 90% of bernie supporters are now supporting Clinton. the #NeverTrump crowd is probably larger in percentage of the party and raw numbers :O

Jul 26, 2016#181

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
Trump : Russia :: Hillary : China?

Hillary has not limited herself to being on the payroll of just one foreign competing nation.

Jul 27, 2016#182

Frank

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289400-aide-trump-will-not-be-releasing-taxes

Trump's refusing to release his taxes. The first presidential nominee since Nixon. It's also TOTALLY not about Russia.

Here's what Mark Cuban thinks:

Jul 27, 2016#183

jwhouk

That would be amusing, if it was discovered that Hil and Bill paid more in taxes than The Donald earned since 97...

Jul 27, 2016#184

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
That would be amusing, if it was discovered that Hil and Bill paid more in taxes than The Donald earned since 97...

It wouldn't surprise me at all. In most things, Trump is all show/flash and no substance.

Jul 27, 2016#185

Charlie Don't Surf

this latest bizarre press conference including treason and breaking several federal laws in public has broken me

Jul 27, 2016#186

Covar

@Dave,

from the New York Times

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,"[...]"I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Many are willfully choosing to interpret this as him calling for a foreign cyberattack on the US Government. :rolleyes:

Jul 27, 2016#187

Dave

Ah. I saw that quote and thought, "He's asking them to release more information on the emails they hacked." So he's not calling for active cybercrime, he's calling to be able to use the products of an already committed cyber crime.

So still bad, but not the same thing.

(Oh man did I just stick up for Trump? Gack!)

Jul 27, 2016#188

GasBandit

I thought he meant the ones Hillary deleted.

Jul 27, 2016#189

Dave

GasBandit said:
I thought he meant the ones Hillary deleted.

But that would be just stupid, considering those servers are now gone and not able to be hacked. Of course, this IS Trump we're talking about.

*whew* Glad I could get that back on track.

Jul 27, 2016#190

GasBandit

Dave said:
Of course, this IS Trump we're talking about.

Well, yeah.

Jul 27, 2016#191

Charlie Don't Surf

Covar said:
are willfully choosing to interpret this as him calling for a foreign cyberattack on the US Government.

okay explain it to me then since i have absolutely no idea how else to interpret it

Jul 27, 2016#192

Gruebeard

Does Russia actually need encouragement to spy on y'all? I mean really, acknowledging that Russia is doing this, and saying you know they're doing it, isn't treason.

And more than that, I read Trump's comment as a jab at the American news media, saying these they will eagerly get into bed with the enemy for a story.

Oh god Dave, this is a horrible feeling. Gack!

Jul 27, 2016#193

Charlie Don't Surf

Jul 27, 2016#194

Dave

Gack again. Damn it.

A political opponent - especially one as opportunistic as Clinton - would NEVER misread or deliberately mislead on a rival's actions. I'm not saying she's WRONG, I'm not not convinced she's RIGHT.

(Actually, I AM convinced she's right. Far, far righter than what she should be.)

Jul 27, 2016#195

GasBandit

Well, somebody has to hold our government accountable to its own people. Odd that it seems to be Russia, but...

Jul 27, 2016#196

Gruebeard

Dave said:
Gack again. Damn it.

And this is why I predict a Trump Victory in November

And a Russian invasion in February.

Jul 27, 2016#197

strawman

I think we can all agree that if the Secretary of the United States chose to use an unsecured computer to communicate classified information, then foreign powers will have that information.

Trump is essentially saying that Russia undoubtedly already has everything that server had. How could they not? How long was she using that server for? How many classified pieces of information did she send and receive through that server?

To assume that it was never touched by a foreign power is the height of arrogance. Or perhaps complacency, incompetence, or even apathy.

So he's not calling for active espionage. He said, "Hey, Russia, since you probably already have the 30k emails that Clinton deleted in order to avoid prosecution, wouldn't it be funny if they ended up in a newsroom in the US?"

In other words, he's asking russia to admit to espionage and attack Clinton at the same time.

Neither of which Russia will do openly, I'd guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if at some point during the campaign certain emails started leaking slowly to the press, and not necessarily from Russia.

I could be wrong about the "openly" part. I'm truly surprised at the open collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign boldly on display right at the beginning of the convention. It's truly mind boggling.

What a time to be alive.

Jul 27, 2016#198

GasBandit

October'll be fun, I wager.

Jul 27, 2016#199

Dave

There will be much gnashing of teeth in November regardless of the outcome.

Jul 27, 2016#200

GasBandit

Undoubtably, but I was referring to the inevitable, and now expected as a matter of course, October Surprise.

Jul 27, 2016#201

Charlie Don't Surf

remember when the october(september) surprise was benghazi and romney smirked walking away from the podium after talking about the dead americans?

Jul 27, 2016#202

Covar

Basically he's assuming and implying that Russia had already hacked the Clinton emails, much the same way they supposedly did the DNC's. He's saying they should get leaked similarly, much in the same way that everyone jokes about the NSA having everything.

To put it another way, with everything Trump says, look at it as if it was said by one of your parents. Would you accuse them of treason, and start making calls to the FBI? No, you'd roll your eyes and move on. Pretty much everything Trump says is catering solely to that relative you have.

Jul 27, 2016#203

GasBandit

Trump.

The Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: FWD: RE: Fwd: RE: SO TRUE Re: Re: Fwd: Fwd: presidential candidate.

Jul 27, 2016#204

Dave

Jul 27, 2016#205

PatrThom

"the long game"

--Patrick

Jul 27, 2016#206

Frank

I think that's just politics.

Jul 28, 2016#207

Necronic

Anyone else find it funny that Trumps campaign manager's day job is as a lobbyist for war criminals and dictators?

Jul 28, 2016#208

DarkAudit

Necronic said:
Anyone else find it funny that Trumps campaign manager's day job is as a lobbyist for war criminals and dictators?

Might be one of the terms of the loans the Russians gave him.

Jul 28, 2016#209

Necronic

No joke though Paul Manaforts history os flat out insane. I would really suggest people give it a quick read. There's not even a "controversy" section, it's just "history", and damn near every bit of it vile.

We're talking about lobbying for multiple war criminals and dictators (Marco and many Central African dudes). Being involved in illegal arms deals gone wrong that have helped finance terrorism. He worked with Yanakovich to sell out Ukraine to the Russians and can more or less be directly tied to the invasion of Ukraine. And my personal favorite, he was introduced to Trump by Roy Cohn, a mutual friend and occasional lawyer for Trump and oh yeah also consigliere to the Genovese family (and also legal thug for Mcarthy). And the list goes on.

But hey, Obama has talked to Bill Ayers before.

Jul 28, 2016#210

GasBandit

Necronic said:
But hey, Obama has talked to Bill Ayers before.

More like had his political debut party in Bill Ayers' house.. but if that didn't matter in electing Obama...?

Jul 28, 2016#211

strawman

Interesting how people are choosing to compare Trump to Obama, rather than the current DNC candidate.

Jul 28, 2016#212

Necronic

I'm just saying, Bill Ayers is literally nothing compared to this guy. He legit reads like a villain from a Tom Clancy novel. And his ties to Russia are so deep and fundamentally corrupt it makes me legit concerned.

I'm guessing there is currently some fairly serious investigative journalism going on against him right now, he seems like a PHENOMONAL liability.[DOUBLEPOST=1469721109,1469721039][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Interesting how people are choosing to compare Trump to Obama, rather than the current DNC candidate.

Hey man if Hillary surrounded herself with anyone near as bad as Ayers or this guy I would have.

And to piggyback your statement it's interesting how much the right is focusing on Hillary's corruption while completely ignoring Trumps.[DOUBLEPOST=1469721274][/DOUBLEPOST]To clarify and make this as clear as possible: Manafort has actively undermined American foreign policy with regards to Russia, and is now working with a candidate that has shown pro Russian sympathies.

This is the republican candidate?

Jul 28, 2016#213

GasBandit

stienman said:
Interesting how people are choosing to compare Trump to Obama, rather than the current DNC candidate.

Well, as I understand it, the Hillary platform basically boils down to "more of what Obama's been doing."

Necronic said:
And to piggyback your statement it's interesting how much the right is focusing on Hillary's corruption while completely ignoring Trumps.

Mostly because Hillary apologists (hah, I love/hate that word so much) have been trying to paint her as pure as the driven snow, and so much better than Trump. So the conversation has mostly been about how Hillary is just as bad.

Jul 28, 2016#214

Necronic

Nah, that's straight bullshit. Hillary is a political operative just like the rest of them and plays the game. She's got some serious dirt under her fingernails and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. Here's the thing though.

Take anyone who "plays the game", and give them 10-20 years in the limelight and see what skeletons get center stage. No one comes out of that clean, and I think she's come out cleaner than most frankly.

I guarantee you give Trump 4 years and you will see what real dirt looks like.

Jul 28, 2016#215

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Nah, that's straight bullshit. Hillary is a political operative just like the rest of them and plays the game. She's got some serious dirt under her fingernails and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. Here's the thing though.

Take anyone who "plays the game", and give them 10-20 years in the limelight and see what skeletons get center stage. No one comes out of that clean, and I think she's come out cleaner than most frankly.

I guarantee you give Trump 4 years and you will see what real dirt looks like.

Trump's awful. Maybe every bit as awful as you say. But Hillary's in the same ballpark. Both belong in prison.

Jul 28, 2016#216

Necronic

I really disagree. The key difference between them is opportunity. Hillary has had access to the highest levels of world power, and she has done some dirt, no doubt. But Trump? Trump has had much less access to power, and his list of sins is still almost as impressive as Hillary's, if not more so. And that's also taking into account the fact that he wasn't under nearly as much scrutiny as her, so god knows what he's actually done. If Hillary has a piece of corn in her shit you better believe it's on the news.

Imagine what he would do with real power?

Jul 28, 2016#217

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I really disagree. The key difference between them is opportunity. Hillary has had access to the highest levels of world power, and she has done some dirt, no doubt. But Trump? Trump has had much less access to power, and his list of sins is still almost as impressive as Hillary's, if not more so. And that's also taking into account the fact that he wasn't under nearly as much scrutiny as her, so god knows what he's actually done. If Hillary has a piece of corn in her shit you better believe it's on the news.

Imagine what he would do with real power?

Oh, the exact opposite is true as far as the news and Hillary. The media has been in the tank for Clintons for 25 years. Her entire political career is one of obfuscation, document shredding and destruction of evidence. This e-mail stuff is just the latest example. Remember Sandy Berger? Remember the stuff that got "lost" on her desk and then got taken away and destroyed before it could be subpoenaed? Last I heard, none of Trump's close compatriots have decided to shoot themselves in the head, then change clothes and go to the park. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told the Clintons he would "not go down alone" in his corruption investigation and then a week later his plane crashes. The Clinton Foundation uses it's "80% overhead cost" charity sham to launder contributions from China, Saudi Arabia, and others and then Clinton turns right around and pretends to champion gay rights and women.

She's just better at hiding/covering up than the Don is because, until he started in politics, he could just pay to make whatever it was go away.

Jul 28, 2016#218

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
The media has been in the tank for Clintons for 25 years.

this is where the tears from laughing were too much to read the rest

please say clinton news network next, c'mon, just for ol' time's sake

Jul 28, 2016#219

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
this is where the tears from laughing were too much to read the rest

please say clinton news network next, c'mon, just for ol' time's sake

It's a large part of the reason why Fox took off so much. The hoi polloi were sick of the blatant, pervasive bias.

Jul 28, 2016#220

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
It's a large part of the reason why Fox took off so much. The hoi polloi were sick of the blatant, pervasive bias.

Well, they were sick of it not being their blatant, pervasive bias.

Also I feel like you meant someone other than the hoi polloi.

Jul 28, 2016#221

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Well, they were sick of it not being their blatant, pervasive bias.

Also I feel like you meant someone other than the hoi polloi.

Hoi polloi - the rabble, the common masses, the public at large, the plebes, the proles, etc.

Jul 28, 2016#222

Gruebeard

Well, huh. I'm going senile. I'm the one mixing up these words.

Jul 28, 2016#223

Necronic

I'm sorry but the idea of there being extensive obfuscation of the Clintons by the media is simply absurd. Any president is going to be under intense scrutiny. To claim otherwise you need some damned good evidence

Also are we really going back to "the Clinton's had a bunch of people murdered" stuff?[DOUBLEPOST=1469726287,1469726014][/DOUBLEPOST]And anyone who thinks Hillary has a cozy relationship with the media really doesnt follow politics as well as they think they do

Jul 28, 2016#224

strawman

It seems strange to me that you believe the Clintons are incapable of suppressing and keeping secrets.

Jul 28, 2016#225

sixpackshaker

Nobody in recent memory has such a cozy relationship with the media than Trump. He has been on all major networks daily during the campaign. Basically getting a solid hour of ad time for free, daily.

Jul 28, 2016#226

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Nobody in recent memory has such a cozy relationship with the media than Trump. He has been on all major networks daily during the campaign. Basically getting a solid hour of ad time for free, daily.

He's a lot better at manipulating the media despite their will, I'll give him that.

Jul 28, 2016#227

Necronic

I think the Clintons have existed under levels of scrutiny that would make Trumps tanned asshole wink.

Jul 28, 2016#228

Gruebeard

Necronic said:
. . . make Trumps tanned asshole wink.

What does this even mean?

Jul 28, 2016#229

Necronic

I kind of mixed up "pucker your asshole" and "winking the brown eye".[DOUBLEPOST=1469728653,1469728344][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh yeah and if you're thinking that the Clintons get a pass from media why is there a literal Primer on her entire list of scandals on The Atlantic (every one of which has been pretty heavily investigated and reported on)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

It's actually a pretty cool read tbh

Jul 28, 2016#230

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Hoi polloi - the rabble, the common masses, the public at large, the plebes, the proles, etc.

Is that supposed to be the opposite of "hoity-toity"?

Jul 28, 2016#231

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Oh yeah and if you're thinking that the Clintons get a pass from media why is there a literal Primer on her entire list of scandals on The Atlantic

Because it's on the internet. You know when we talk about media bias, what we're talking about. Everybody doesn't drive home at the end of the day, turn on the TV and tune it to The Atlantic.

Also it categorizes everything before 2001 as "that other stuff nobody cares about because it's old."
[DOUBLEPOST=1469728976,1469728945][/DOUBLEPOST]

blotsfan said:
Is that supposed to be the opposite of "hoity-toity"?

Effectively, yes, but it is actually real greek for "the many."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi

Jul 28, 2016#232

Zappit

Eh, the media bias claim is pretty bullshit this year. Anybody watch the Today Show? I recall Trump calling in every day during the primaries and getting the first ten minutes of the show most days. He got cozy, softball interviews. When they finally gave Clinton an interview, Savannah Guthrie asks her about three questions, all variations of the same question. NBC has been very friendly towards Trump. The ironic thing is that Trump would bitch about the equal coverage rules while he DOMINATED time on the morning shows.

Maybe they won't be as friendly now that he asked a foreign power to launch a cyberattack against his opponent. Yeah, he said he was joking, but it sure wasn't funny.

Jul 28, 2016#233

blotsfan

Zappit said:
Eh, the media bias claim is pretty bullshit this year. Anybody watch the Today Show? I recall Trump calling in every day during the primaries and getting the first ten minutes of the show most days. He got cozy, softball interviews. When they finally gave Clinton an interview, Savannah Guthrie asks her about three questions, all variations of the same question. NBC has been very friendly towards Trump. The ironic thing is that Trump would bitch about the equal coverage rules while he DOMINATED time on the morning shows.

As much as a I don't like defending Trump, I recall the stations regularly saying that they had an open invitation for any candidate to come on and talk, and Trump was just the only one who took advantage of it as much as he could

Jul 30, 2016#234

Frank

Looks like he's trying to wriggle out of the debates now.

Jul 30, 2016#235

DarkAudit

So what are we gonna get this fall, October Surprise or Reichstag Fire?

Jul 30, 2016#236

Frank

Apparently the debate dates were set over a year ago.

So.....huh.

Jul 30, 2016#237

DarkAudit

Trump has been using gaslighting as his primary campaign strategy from the beginning.

Jul 30, 2016#238

Zappit

Remember, if Donald doesn't like it, it's rigged.

Anyone hear about his AMA. All the questions very heavily screened. They weren't even softballs. The guy was batting with a tee. And, as usual, he offered no details on his plans.

Jul 30, 2016#239

Terrik

Zappit said:
Remember, if Donald doesn't like it, it's rigged.

After everything that's happened so far, I can't exactly see how that's an unreasonable assumption, no matter who's saying it.

There has been actual rigging this election cycle (although lets be honest, probably not just this election cycle.)

But hey, gotta support the team ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Jul 30, 2016#240

Hailey Knight

Zappit said:
Anyone hear about his AMA. All the questions very heavily screened. They weren't even softballs. The guy was batting with a tee. And, as usual, he offered no details on his plans.

I saw that, thought it was going to be interesting, went and looked. I almost wonder if those were real people on Reddit or just pre-made questions written by his people, because they 1. well organized and 2. essentially orbiting the Trump greatness.

You'd think that would at least result in straight answers, but nope. The only thing he wasn't vague about was anti-Hilary rhetoric.

Jul 30, 2016#241

Dave

Jul 30, 2016#242

Gruebeard

Dave said:

Well, to be fair to Trump, that was Obama's answer to the question back before his first term, too.

Jul 30, 2016#243

Dave

*citation needed

Jul 30, 2016#244

Zappit

It's actually sort of pathetically impressive how Trump can communicate on every social media platform using less than 140 characters.

Aug 1, 2016#245

Frank

This fucking guy's job must be a nightmare. Explain Donald Trump's words.

Aug 1, 2016#246

DarkAudit

I'd like to see the logic of the 4 Trump voters still hanging on. If it's anything other than "not Hillary," defend your position. After this latest mess, how can you possibly support this lunatic? Really. He hits all the markers for being clinically insane.

Aug 1, 2016#247

Bubble181

DarkAudit said:
I'd like to see the logic of the 4 Trump voters still hanging on. If it's anything other than "not Hillary," defend your position. After this latest mess, how can you possibly support this lunatic? Really. He hits all the markers for being clinically insane.

Oh, mine's just "there's no "grue", "I wouldn't/aren't allowed to vote" or "third party" option, and I wanted to see the results".

Aug 1, 2016#248

DarkAudit

Okay, that's one down, three to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aug 1, 2016#249

Denbrought

As I've said elsewhere, my wife will be more willing to consider globe-trotting if your country goes down in flames or BECOMES GREAT AGAIN IN A VERY HIGH-ENERGY MANNER.

I also can't vote, and found the lack of a third option to represent that fucking hilarious because of who made the poll.

Aug 1, 2016#250

DarkAudit

In spite of what GB may tell you, if you want to keep Trump out of the White House, there really isn't a third option. If not for Nader, Gore would have been elected in 2000.

Other times I might agree with "consider the source." In this case, the source is correct.

Aug 1, 2016#251

Denbrought

So, to recap, my options are "risk getting arrested at the polling place" and "risk getting arrested at the polling place"... I thought your "lesser of two evils" system was supposed to offer two different degrees of bad.

Aug 1, 2016#252

Ravenpoe

DarkAudit said:
I'd like to see the logic of the 4 Trump voters still hanging on. If it's anything other than "not Hillary," defend your position. After this latest mess, how can you possibly support this lunatic? Really. He hits all the markers for being clinically insane.

I would guess the reason is probably that people have the right to vote for whomever they want, and don't have to defend shit, to you or anyone else. Calling people out to defend themselves in an opinion poll is pretty poor taste.

Aug 1, 2016#253

Jay

Because some people just want to watch the world burn, that's why.

Aug 1, 2016#254

strawman

Last week during the DNC all the facebook posts were slightly veiled versions of "I don't like Hillary, but I'm voting for her and urging everyone else because I fear Trump."

This week I'm starting to see the inevitable responses from within the party, "Hillary is actually awesome, and I'm voting for her because she's awesome, not because she's the lesser of two evils."

Aug 1, 2016#255

Dave

DarkAudit said:
I'd like to see the logic of the 4 Trump voters still hanging on. If it's anything other than "not Hillary," defend your position. After this latest mess, how can you possibly support this lunatic? Really. He hits all the markers for being clinically insane.

The only reason I'm voting Hillary is because she's Not Trump. How is that different?

Aug 1, 2016#256

DarkAudit

It's a discussion thread. You make your choice and are expected to contribute to the conversation. Defending your choice is part of that discussion.

Now, defend the psychopath or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aug 1, 2016#257

strawman

Aug 1, 2016#258

Terrik

DarkAudit said:
It's a discussion thread. You make your choice and are expected to contribute to the conversation. Defending your choice is part of that discussion.

Now, defend the psychopath or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Ravenpoe 's post was a nice say of saying you're creating an environment that is not conducive to the kind of discussion you want. Why would anyone want to discuss their political support (or even lack thereof) when you appear ready to fly off the handle at anyone who dares. Maybe if you'd look less like you were spoiling for a fight and more willing to have a mature discussion, people would be willing to respond.

Aug 1, 2016#259

DarkAudit

Terrik said:
@Ravenpoe 's post was a nice say of saying you're creating an environment that is not conducive to the kind of discussion you want. Why would anyone want to discuss their political support (or even lack thereof) when you appear ready to fly off the handle at anyone who dares. Maybe if you'd look less like you were spoiling for a fight and more willing to have a mature discussion, people would be willing to respond.

Not so much fly off the handle as give them a good shake and yell, "what the hell is wrong with you?"

But really, is anyone going to try to make the case for Trump without going to "he's not the other one"?

Hillary wasn't my first choice, no. But I'm pretty certain she's not stark raving loony. KO gives a pretty good case that The Donald probably is. The PCL-R is a professionally recognized diagnostic tool.

I may start with "She's not Trump," but the list of reasons to not vote for him gets longer and longer every day. Johnson and Stein aren't even worth considering. Not just for their third-partiness, but now that they've started pandering to the anti-vaxx crowd they've lost any respect I might have ever given them.

Aug 1, 2016#260

Bubble181

There are plenty of defensible reasons to vote Trump. To be clear, my listing them would be playing Devil's Advocate, but they're there.

You're falling into the "Charlie trap": by dismissing all possible supporters of Trump as being completely and utterly stupid and/or crazy, you're showing that you're not actually open to debate, anyway - so there's little reason for them to engage you at all.

Aug 1, 2016#261

Ravenpoe

Bubble181 said:
There are plenty of defensible reasons to vote Trump. To be clear, my listing them would be playing Devil's Advocate, but they're there.

You're falling into the "Charlie trap": by dismissing all possible supporters of Trump as being completely and utterly stupid and/or crazy, you're showing that you're not actually open to debate, anyway - so there's little reason for them to engage you at all.

This. I actually wrote a post in another thread (maybe even this one) that I think sums it up well, but I'm at work so can't really go searching for it. But basically, it boils down to don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a monster or an idiot, because that sort of mentality, in anything, dies nothing but foster close mindedness, limit growth, and fracture cooperation.

Aug 1, 2016#262

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
This. I actually wrote a post in another thread (maybe even this one) that I think sums it up well, but I'm at work so can't really go searching for it. But basically, it boils down to don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a monster or an idiot, because that sort of mentality, in anything, dies nothing but foster close mindedness, limit growth, and fracture cooperation.

Unless the discussion's about steak. Because people who want it well done really are monsters, idiots and miscreants, all at the same time. And they probably eat babies, too. :awesome:

Aug 1, 2016#263

GasBandit

I've said it multiple times - Trump is not actually a candidate, he is a grenade in human form, and a rather large amount of people want to throw him at DC. You can say "how can you pick up a grenade, it's clearly a deadly explosive that will kill you" all you want, but the fact of the matter is the DC ivory tower establishment has reached such proportions that it's drawing comparisons to the hunger games. If trump was up against anybody besides hillary, he'd have no chance at all. But the Democrat party rallied behind the candidate that exemplifies everything wrong, diseased, twisted, nepotistic, criminal, and mercenary about US politics more than any other.

I'm still voting Johnson, but I don't begrudge anybody their Trump vote - because if you consider "I'm voting hillary, despite hating her, because I fear trump" to be a valid reason then so is the other way around.

Aug 1, 2016#264

Dei

Ravenpoe said:
This. I actually wrote a post in another thread (maybe even this one) that I think sums it up well, but I'm at work so can't really go searching for it. But basically, it boils down to don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a monster or an idiot, because that sort of mentality, in anything, dies nothing but foster close mindedness, limit growth, and fracture cooperation.

This exact scenario also came up in the police thread, where Null tried to back OC in a corner. It's stupid and shouldn't be happening in a thread where you want honest discourse.

Aug 1, 2016#265

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
I've said it multiple times - Trump is not actually a candidate, he is a grenade in human form, and a rather large amount of people want to throw him at DC. You can say "how can you pick up a grenade, it's clearly a deadly explosive that will kill you" all you want, but the fact of the matter is the DC ivory tower establishment has reached such proportions that it's drawing comparisons to the hunger games. If trump was up against anybody besides hillary, he'd have no chance at all. But the Democrat party rallied behind the candidate that exemplifies everything wrong, diseased, twisted, nepotistic, criminal, and mercenary about US politics more than any other.

I'm still voting Johnson, but I don't begrudge anybody their Trump vote - because if you consider "I'm voting hillary, despite hating her, because I fear trump" to be a valid reason then so is the other way around.

Texas is probably a lost cause, anyway. No point in begrudging you the Johnson vote. Just hope you don't get the measles.

And to use your grenade metaphor, some of the folks at *both* podiums at the conventions are the ones those people want that grenade shoved up the butt of.

Aug 1, 2016#266

Sara_2814

DarkAudit said:
In spite of what GB may tell you, if you want to keep Trump out of the White House, there really isn't a third option. If not for Nader, Gore would have been elected in 2000.

Other times I might agree with "consider the source." In this case, the source is correct.

No, it's not Nader supporters who cost Gore the election. It's Gore/Democratic Party who cost Gore the election, partly by not appealing to the people who felt that Nader/Green Party best represented them. Green Party supporters don't owe the Democrats a fucking thing. It's not their fault the Dems put up a weak candidate and they shouldn't have to sacrifice their vote for the person who best represents them to fix the Democratic Party's mistakes. And that includes this election as well. The Democrats chose a candidate with a ton of baggage that Republicans love to hate rather than one that could appeal to the angry Republicans who selected Trump over a dozen other Republicans in the primaries. It's not the fault of third parties if the choices of the Democratic and Republican parties leads to President Trump.

Aug 1, 2016#267

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
Okay, that's one down, three to go.

My vote for Trump is a misguided attempt to create material for comedians.

Aug 1, 2016#268

Bubble181

True. They've rigged the system so much that it's nearly impossible for a third party to win, sadly. A Clinton/Trump/Sanders/X (choose some Republican candidate you'd've liked - Cruz, or Kasich, or Christie) general election would've been much more interesting. Even if it was with some French two-rounds thing.

Aug 1, 2016#269

Null

I look at it this way: It's not a vote for Clinton, it's a vote for the EPA. It's a vote for LGBQT rights. It's a vote for not mass-deporting immigrants. It's a vote for not banning entire religions. It's a vote for Supreme Court nominations that will have influence for decades.

There are a lot of things I don't like about Hillary Clinton's policies. But even taking that into consideration, I feel she is a much better choice for the United States, and for the world, heading to the future. And so I will vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I would have preferred it if Bernie had won the nomination.

Aug 1, 2016#270

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
Not so much fly off the handle as give them a good shake and yell, "what the hell is wrong with you?"

You ask that after seeing that the 2 people who tell you they selected Trump aren't American citizens?

You should be voting for Trump. He thinks there something wrong with foreigners, too.

Aug 1, 2016#271

Sara_2814

Null said:
I look at it this way: It's not a vote for Clinton, it's a vote for the EPA. It's a vote for LGBQT rights. It's a vote for not mass-deporting immigrants. It's a vote for not banning entire religions. It's a vote for Supreme Court nominations that will have influence for decades.

You can vote for the Green Party and support those same things. Yet Green Party supporters are going to be bullied into voting for Clinton and then blamed if she doesn't win (even though it's up to Clinton to appeal to them over Stein, they don't owe Clinton their votes--there's a reason they are Greens and not Democrats).

Aug 1, 2016#272

sixpackshaker

I felt Gore lost the election from listening to image consultants. Instead of being himself, a stiff man in a blue suit. He listened to consultants and tried to act like a down home dude, that grew up on a plantation. Then he wore obnoxious clothes that did not fit his personality. And he came of weaker looking than Jimmy Carter (who actually was a pretty bad ass guy.)

Aug 1, 2016#273

Jay

Perhaps I can ask the question then?

As a Canadian and neutral to this debate, I'm quite baffled that Trump has come this far. On our end, he's ridiculed on a daily basis but I admit he's quite entertaining.
To summarize, most people I know feel we're watching America blow itself up.
How is he exactly getting support despite being in non-stop controversy?
Why are people voting for him? Is it due to being a blind Republican supporter or because they dislike the Snake Queen?
Do you really believe he'll make America great again?

Aug 1, 2016#274

Covar

DarkAudit said:
It's a discussion thread. You make your choice and are expected to contribute to the conversation. Defending your choice is part of that discussion.

Now, defend the psychopath or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let me ask you this, when did you stop beating your wife?

Aug 1, 2016#275

Tress

Covar said:
Let me ask you this, when did you stop beating your wife?

And remember to defend your choice.

Aug 1, 2016#276

Null

Sara_2814 said:
You can vote for the Green Party and support those same things. Yet Green Party supporters are going to be bullied into voting for Clinton and then blamed if she doesn't win (even though it's up to Clinton to appeal to them over Stein, they don't owe Clinton their votes--there's a reason they are Greens and not Democrats).

There are a lot of problems with Stein. For one thing, while she is not technically anti-vaxx, she's decidedly non-committal in her statements on the issue and from a medical doctor, that's troubling. She attacks GMO producers using debunked myths (particularly one about a supposed 200,000 farmers in India who committed suicide due to GMOs) since actual studies do not support anti-GMO thinking. Third, the Green Party has no significant base of support. According to their own numbers, they have something like an 18% success rate in local elections. Jill Stein herself managed 0.36% of the vote in the 2012 presidential election, so if she did 100 times better this round, she STILL wouldn't have a majority. Fourth, she wants to eliminate fossil fuel usage by 2030 but also eschews nuclear power, which would be necessary at least as a stopgap measure. Fifth, her grasp of financial policy seems tenuous to poor, and her plan to cancel student loan debt is based on a serious misunderstanding of both what the bailout entailed and how quantitative easing works.

To quote from Slate:
Wait, write off student loans through quantitative easing? What? Is that really what she's saying? Yes, that is what she's saying. Here is Stein describing her understanding of the Wall Street bailout and explaining how it relates to her student loan plan:

(The bailout involved) about $17 trillion if you include the free loans. And the free loans largely got paid back. ... Forget about the free loans and just consider the debt that was canceled. That was $4 trillion in the form of quantitative easing. So that’s not money that was transferred to them. It’s simply a debt that was bought up by the U.S. government, and then essentially zeroed out, canceled. So it didn’t put money in their pockets so to speak. But it rid them of all that debt that they would otherwise have to pay. So that’s exactly what we are calling for here, a quantitative easing which is not money in their pocket. It’s essentially that the government has bought up that loan and it tears up the contract. It’s over.

This is wrong. Flat wrong. Quantitative easing was an unconventional monetary policy tool the Federal Reserve used to try and revive the economy after the financial crisis once it had emptied its normal bag of tricks. There have been vigorous debates about whether it was wise, or whether it worked. But it did not involve buying and canceling debt owed by the banks. Quite the opposite—it involved buying and holding onto debts owned by the banks (or other investors, for that matter), such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.

This might sound like a small distinction if you're not a monetary policy obsessive. But it's absolutely essential to understanding what the Fed was doing, and the rationale behind it. (Among other things, holding onto the debts, rather than canceling them, was a key part of how the Fed planned to contain inflation down the line.) Stein's description is so far off, it's as if someone asked Stein how to play basketball, and she answered that teams scored points by kicking the ball off the backboard. /Slate

So for those reasons, I cannot vote for Stein.

Aug 1, 2016#277

Gruebeard

But, @Jay, who are you asking. 3 out of 4 Halforum Trump "voters" have declared they selected him as an abstention or joke.

Oh god! Trump's the new Grue. :Leyla:

Aug 1, 2016#278

GasBandit

Jay said:
Perhaps I can ask the question then?

As a Canadian and neutral to this debate, I'm quite baffled that Trump has come this far. On our end, he's ridiculed on a daily basis but I admit he's quite entertaining.
To summarize, most people I know feel we're watching America blow itself up.
How is he exactly getting support despite being in non-stop controversy?

Rob Ford.

Aug 1, 2016#279

Bubble181

See, what I consider to be (a small part of) the problem is that people treat Trump like he's this big New Thing. He may be somewhat new in America, but he's really not dissimilar from Farage, or Wilders, or Berlusconi if you go back a bit, or Putin, or Orban, or Erdogan. All of these people were voted in, some with huge majorities.

A Strong Leader who Dares to Say What Can't Be Said, someone who's willing to break through the liberal bias and the enforced left Goodthink, someone who represents a return to Values, and the Good Old Times, someone who's willing to oust the (current) corrupt establishment, someone who will defend the Middle Class White Guy who feels all this multicultural b*llsh*t is just making everything harder for him, someone who'll bring back Order and Structure and who doesn't mind that "us regular folks" don't want to think about politics all the time, just get on with it, someone who'll stop all those scary foreigners/Muslims/the West/others from coming and taking our jobs, someone who'll Make [Country] Great Again, ...

Not all of the above apply in that exact form (f.e., Erdogan doesn't intend to push out Muslims

), but there's a lot of parallels. Trump is, in some way, an exponent of this and the fact that he managed to get in as a name for one of the Two Big Ones is rare - these usually/often had to muscle up as their country's equivalent of a third party candidate - but otherwise...Eh. Berlusconi was elected despite being convicted of fraud, he's had media scandals, tax scandals, statutory rape charges, bribing judges, and all of that hanging over his head and he still managed to get re-elected a dozen times with overwhelming majorities....And even now, there's still a large group of Italians who want him back. A lot of people want/need a strong leader willing to stand up for them, and to defend them. A lot of people, given the choice, would prefer a (benevolent) dictator. It's a failure of (mostly) left intellectuals to continue to think that if only given the chance and some education, all people will suddenly cherish having power and having a voice. The only "useful" thing they feel they can do with their voice is say "fuck you".

Aug 1, 2016#280

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Rob Ford.

Aye. Early on in Trump's rise through the primaries, Toronto's media was pointing out the similarities. Well, especially the reporter who had been a city hall correspondent during Ford's tenure, and then coincidentally became the Washington correspondent before the primaries got under way.

Aug 1, 2016#281

Frank

GasBandit said:
Rob Ford.

Was a mayor to be fair, not prime minister.

Also, of Toronto. Toronto is an odd place.

Aug 1, 2016#282

Gruebeard

Frank said:
Was a mayor to be fair, not prime minister.

Also, of Toronto. Toronto is an odd place.

As Rob Ford would've told ya, though, more people voted him into office than have ever voted in a Prime Minister. That means more people love Rob Ford than will ever love any Trudeau.

(Though the Trudeaus win the all important competition. Everyone wants to sleep with them, Rob Ford could only get the fatty lovers and necrophiliacs.)

And probably only the necrophiliac fatty lovers.

I, uh, don't know why I posted this.

Aug 1, 2016#283

Sara_2814

Null said:
There are a lot of problems with Stein. For one thing, while she is not technically anti-vaxx, she's decidedly non-committal in her statements on the issue and from a medical doctor, that's troubling. She attacks GMO producers using debunked myths (particularly one about a supposed 200,000 farmers in India who committed suicide due to GMOs) since actual studies do not support anti-GMO thinking. Third, the Green Party has no significant base of support. According to their own numbers, they have something like an 18% success rate in local elections. Jill Stein herself managed 0.36% of the vote in the 2012 presidential election, so if she did 100 times better this round, she STILL wouldn't have a majority. Fourth, she wants to eliminate fossil fuel usage by 2030 but also eschews nuclear power, which would be necessary at least as a stopgap measure. Fifth, her grasp of financial policy seems tenuous to poor, and her plan to cancel student loan debt is based on a serious misunderstanding of both what the bailout entailed and how quantitative easing works.

To quote from Slate:
Wait, write off student loans through quantitative easing? What? Is that really what she's saying? Yes, that is what she's saying. Here is Stein describing her understanding of the Wall Street bailout and explaining how it relates to her student loan plan:

(The bailout involved) about $17 trillion if you include the free loans. And the free loans largely got paid back. ... Forget about the free loans and just consider the debt that was canceled. That was $4 trillion in the form of quantitative easing. So that’s not money that was transferred to them. It’s simply a debt that was bought up by the U.S. government, and then essentially zeroed out, canceled. So it didn’t put money in their pockets so to speak. But it rid them of all that debt that they would otherwise have to pay. So that’s exactly what we are calling for here, a quantitative easing which is not money in their pocket. It’s essentially that the government has bought up that loan and it tears up the contract. It’s over.

This is wrong. Flat wrong. Quantitative easing was an unconventional monetary policy tool the Federal Reserve used to try and revive the economy after the financial crisis once it had emptied its normal bag of tricks. There have been vigorous debates about whether it was wise, or whether it worked. But it did not involve buying and canceling debt owed by the banks. Quite the opposite—it involved buying and holding onto debts owned by the banks (or other investors, for that matter), such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
This might sound like a small distinction if you're not a monetary policy obsessive. But it's absolutely essential to understanding what the Fed was doing, and the rationale behind it. (Among other things, holding onto the debts, rather than canceling them, was a key part of how the Fed planned to contain inflation down the line.) Stein's description is so far off, it's as if someone asked Stein how to play basketball, and she answered that teams scored points by kicking the ball off the backboard. /Slate

So for those reasons, I cannot vote for Stein.

Sorry, my reply to your post was poorly written. I wasn't telling you to vote for Stein (I wouldn't tell anyone to vote for Stein, though I support their right to vote for her), and you certainly don't have to defend your support of the Democratic platform. I was trying to make a point that other people use those same issues (and others) to decide to vote Green (as an example, since they tend to align closest with the Democrats) and then get berated for it and (potentially) blamed for Clinton not getting elected, as if they owe the Democrats votes because some of their platform align.

Aug 1, 2016#284

PatrThom

Dave said:
The only reason I'm voting Hillary is because she's Not Trump.

Really, how long until someone finds something to suggest her team was also somehow behind arranging things so her opponent ended up being someone that was a poison pill?
I'm not saying it'll be believable, either, just that someone will proudly Trumpet (heh) I KNEW IT ALL ALONG.

--Patrick

Aug 1, 2016#285

Dei

I can tell you that most of my extended family supported Trump during primaries, but I really don't know why. My mom didn't like him, but will vote for him anyways, because my family has this idea that only Republicans have their best interest at heart, even though they couldn't tell you a single reason why other than taxes.

I seriously have relatives who think Sarah Palin is awesome. :/

Aug 1, 2016#286

Null

PatrThom said:
Really, how long until someone finds something to suggest her team was also somehow behind arranging things so her opponent ended up being someone that was a poison pill?
I'm not saying it'll be believable, either, just that someone will proudly Trumpet (heh) I KNEW IT ALL ALONG.

--Patrick

I've seen things like that for months.[DOUBLEPOST=1470076924,1470076682][/DOUBLEPOST]

Sara_2814 said:
Sorry, my reply to your post was poorly written. I wasn't telling you to vote for Stein (I wouldn't tell anyone to vote for Stein, though I support their right to vote for her), and you certainly don't have to defend your support of the Democratic platform. I was trying to make a point that other people use those same issues (and others) to decide to vote Green (as an example, since they tend to align closest with the Democrats) and then get berated for it and (potentially) blamed for Clinton not getting elected, as if they owe the Democrats votes because some of their platform align.

And I was explaining my reasons for thinking that while Jill Stein and the Green Party are technically an alternative, they are by no means a *better* or even a *viable* option.

Aug 1, 2016#287

Jay

Dei said:
I seriously have relatives who think Sarah Palin is awesome. :/

She is, she has incredible eye sight.

Aug 1, 2016#288

SpecialKO

I have a few friends who went deep into the non-profit policy activism scene after college, and while they are all Bernie supporters who are grumpy at Clinton and DWS, they're all very ambivalent about most 3rd-parties on the left.

To hear them tell it, 3rd-parties, even the Greens, just don't really show up except for "major" elections. It's not enough to write someone onto the ballot, they don't really organize, their goals seem to focus on elections instead of the policy-making in between elections, they don't go up against non-challenged incumbents, they don't try and form coalitions with other progressive organizations or parties, they basically don't do the actual work of trying to change things that doesn't involve megaphone protests or voting in Presidential years.

Aug 1, 2016#289

Frank

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...54/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-AKhy0lYxpID5Tv5F1uapDQ

Yikes. Trump says that women should quit their jobs and find something else if they find themselves targeted by sexual harassment.

Aug 1, 2016#290

Null

Frank said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...54/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-AKhy0lYxpID5Tv5F1uapDQ

Yikes. Trump says that women should quit their jobs and find something else if they find themselves targeted by sexual harassment.

Nothing like giving the harasser even more influence over their target's life, right?

Aug 1, 2016#291

GasBandit

Null said:
Nothing like giving the harasser even more influence over their target's life, right?

I think it speaks more to his disconnectedness from the common man (or woman in this case). It doesn't even occur to him that employment is anything other than what you choose to do to while away the time, and if you don't like your situation, you find something else to do you like better. He has never wanted for anything, never had to make a hard personal financial decision, or had to put up with something he hated with all his heart because to do otherwise would mean being homeless or starving. To him, every bad situation is rectified by following in Bender's example: "Screw you guys, I'll go make my own whatever-it-is, with blackjack! And hookers!"

Aug 1, 2016#292

Eriol

GasBandit said:
Rob Ford.

Nice post. I think you've hit it on the head really well. When the Canadians here (and especially those from Ontario) understand why Rob Ford WON multiple times over, then you can understand why Trump has support at all. If you only concentrate on why he shouldn't have won, then you're missing it.

Aug 1, 2016#293

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Nice post. I think you've hit it on the head really well. When the Canadians here (and especially those from Ontario) understand why Rob Ford WON multiple times over, then you can understand why Trump has support at all. If you only concentrate on why he shouldn't have won, then you're missing it.

Just for clarity, Rob Ford only won one mayoral election. He was likely to win the next but dropped out of that race because of cancer. He did win multiple (3) elections for city councillor.

One of the reasons he won those elections is because he liked doing constituent work. Answering calls about it potholes and lost dogs and all the little every day problems that people called him up about. He liked helping people that way, and is one of the major reasons people voted for him. And it's a good reason to have voted for. For city councillor, at least.

He kept doing it as mayor, instead of doing the executive work, the work of leading council and the city. As mayor, it just kept looking like he was in over his head and feel back on councillor work because it's what he knew and could do. But that's another people were gonna vote him back in as mayor; he still working hard on the little things. Not such a good reason to vote for him for mayor. Not mayor of a major city.

There's more to it than that, of course, but I'm not @steinman, and this was a fundamental part from what I saw.

So, I do have an understanding of why Rob won, a complimentary understanding of the man, not a bemoaning of the idiocy of the populace.

He was a horrible mayor, though. Again, in over his head. I wonder what President Trump will actually be like.[DOUBLEPOST=1470109263,1470109229][/DOUBLEPOST]@steinwoman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109298][/DOUBLEPOST]@mugman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109330][/DOUBLEPOST]@morman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109364][/DOUBLEPOST]@thatlongwindedman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109405][/DOUBLEPOST]@youknowwhoImean[DOUBLEPOST=1470109452][/DOUBLEPOST]@GasBandit, Help!

Aug 1, 2016#294

bhamv3

Gruebeard said:
Just for clarity, Rob Ford only won one mayoral election. He was likely to win the next but dropped out of that race because of cancer. He did win multiple (3) elections for city councillor.

One of the reasons he won those elections is because he liked doing constituent work. Answering calls about it potholes and lost dogs and all the little every day problems that people called him up about. He liked helping people that way, and is one of the major reasons people voted for him. And it's a good reason to have voted for. For city councillor, at least.

He kept doing it as mayor, instead of doing the executive work, the work of leading council and the city. As mayor, it just kept looking like he was in over his head and feel back on councillor work because it's what he knew and could do. But that's another people were gonna vote him back in as mayor; he still working hard on the little things. Not such a good reason to vote for him for mayor. Not mayor of a major city.

There's more to it than that, of course, but I'm not @steinman, and this was a fundamental part from what I saw.

So, I do have an understanding of why Rob won, a complimentary understanding of the man, not a bemoaning of the idiocy of the populace.

He was a horrible mayor, though. Again, in over his head. I wonder what President Trump will actually be like.[DOUBLEPOST=1470109263,1470109229][/DOUBLEPOST]@steinwoman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109298][/DOUBLEPOST]@mugman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109330][/DOUBLEPOST]@morman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109364][/DOUBLEPOST]@thatlongwindedman[DOUBLEPOST=1470109405][/DOUBLEPOST]@youknowwhoImean[DOUBLEPOST=1470109452][/DOUBLEPOST]@GasBandit, Help!

On a scale of 1 to Rob Ford, what's the concentration of substances in your bloodstream right now?

Aug 1, 2016#295

Gruebeard

Marion Barry.

Aug 2, 2016#296

DarkAudit

Gruebeard said:
Marion Barry.

We don't need the drunk wagon, we need the coroner.

Aug 2, 2016#297

DarkAudit

Rep. Richard Hanna is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly disavow Trump. Albeit a retiring Congressman. He's not facing reelection. That'll be the key. If they start going "election be damned, I can't support this nutter," then it's all but over.

Aug 2, 2016#298

Bubble181

DarkAudit said:
Rep. Richard Hanna is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly disavow Trump. Albeit a retiring Congressman. He's not facing reelection. That'll be the key. If they start going "election be damned, I can't support this nutter," then it's all but over.

Unless someone really serious suddenly decides to run as a third party Republicans could stand behind, saying "I can't support Trump" is pretty much equal to saying "I want Hillary for president", due to the flaws in the US presidential election system. With the current complete breakdown in middle ground and possible consensus - "Trump is the Devil", "Lock Her Up", "They're traitors", "So are they!", .... It doesn't seem likely for any Republican who needs or wants re-election to risk saying "we're better off with 4 more years of Democrats in the WH than with Trump".

Aug 2, 2016#299

Shakey

DarkAudit said:
Rep. Richard Hanna is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly disavow Trump. Albeit a retiring Congressman. He's not facing reelection. That'll be the key. If they start going "election be damned, I can't support this nutter," then it's all but over.

It won't be over until all the ballots are counted. Established politicians didn't win the nomination for Trump, and they aren't the key to him winning the presidency. If anything, them pulling their support will help him by giving him something else to rally against.

Aug 2, 2016#300

Sara_2814

Bubble181 said:
Unless someone really serious suddenly decides to run as a third party Republicans could stand behind, saying "I can't support Trump" is pretty much equal to saying "I want Hillary for president", due to the flaws in the US presidential election system. With the current complete breakdown in middle ground and possible consensus - "Trump is the Devil", "Lock Her Up", "They're traitors", "So are they!", .... It doesn't seem likely for any Republican who needs or wants re-election to risk saying "we're better off with 4 more years of Democrats in the WH than with Trump".

While a limited sample, my husband is military--a strongly Republican/conservative group--and he knows of only one person in his squadron who supports Trump. The Trump hate is strong there and he's been amazed at the amount of support for Gary Johnson that's been showing up in his Facebook feed from fellow military members. They see in Trump a person with complete disregard for the military and what its members go through (see: his shitty comments about John McCain and the Khans) and someone who will throw them into a meat grinder with no regard simply because it's good for business.

And from various readings on the internet, it seems the attitude of the #NeverTrump crowd is to resign themselves to four years of Hillary--even voting for her--because as much as they don't like her she's still better than Trump, and focus on keeping Congress majority Republican to keep her in check.

Aug 2, 2016#301

Bubble181

Sara_2814 said:
While a limited sample, my husband is military--a strongly Republican/conservative group--and he knows of only one person in his squadron who supports Trump. The Trump hate is strong there and he's been amazed at the amount of support for Gary Johnson that's been showing up in his Facebook feed from fellow military members. They see in Trump a person with complete disregard for the military and what its members go through (see: his shitty comments about John McCain and the Khans) and someone who will throw them into a meat grinder with no regard simply because it's good for business.

And from various readings on the internet, it seems the attitude of the #NeverTrump crowd is to resign themselves to four years of Hillary--even voting for her--because as much as they don't like her she's still better than Trump, and focus on keeping Congress majority Republican to keep her in check.

I wonder who's biggest - Bernie's Boys, or #NeverTrump. Both sides didn't dare/couldn't come out as a third/fourth party, but it'd have been so much fun if they had!

Aug 2, 2016#302

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
I wonder who's biggest - Bernie's Boys, or #NeverTrump. Both sides didn't dare/couldn't come out as a third/fourth party, but it'd have been so much fun if they had!

I think, for all its foibles, the DNC did a better job at massaging the Bernie crowd back into the fold than the RNC did with their NeverTrumps. I think most of the new people talking Johnson are disgruntled Republicans and not disgruntled Democrats - and Stein barely gets a footnote mention even in comparison to Johnson.

Like I said weeks ago, I'm pretty sure this election is now Hillary's to lose, barring an October Surprise.

Aug 2, 2016#303

Frank

Heh, now Warren Buffett is calling out Trump on his taxes. What can Trump even say to the guy since his entire self-worth is based on his success and Buffett is at the very least worth fifteen times what he is.

Aug 2, 2016#304

strawman

I have to admit, I look at the taxes thing as a birther situation.

Aug 2, 2016#305

Frank

stienman said:
I have to admit, I look at the taxes thing as a birther situation.

Kind of funny comeuppance then for Trump.

Aug 2, 2016#306

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
I think, for all its foibles, the DNC did a better job at massaging the Bernie crowd back into the fold than the RNC did with their NeverTrumps. I think most of the new people talking Johnson are disgruntled Republicans and not disgruntled Democrats - and Stein barely gets a footnote mention even in comparison to Johnson.

Like I said weeks ago, I'm pretty sure this election is now Hillary's to lose, barring an October Surprise.

Trump's already whining that the election is "gonna be rigged." So I'll ask the question I asked before. Will we get an October Surprise or a Reichstag Fire?[DOUBLEPOST=1470152403,1470152345][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
I have to admit, I look at the taxes thing as a birther situation.

We haven't heard from Orly Taitz in a while. Whatever happened to her?

Aug 2, 2016#307

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Trump's already whining that the election is "gonna be rigged." So I'll ask the question I asked before. Will we get an October Surprise or a Reichstag Fire?

At this point, I'm not sure all of us would consider it to be a bad thing if the capitol burned to the ground. Preferably with as many congressmen and senators still inside as possible.

We haven't heard from Orly Taitz in a while. Whatever happened to her?

Still carrying Trump's water, but nobody pays attention to her any more.

Aug 2, 2016#308

Dave

stienman said:
I have to admit, I look at the taxes thing as a birther situation.

I disagree. I the case of the birthers it was nothing but race-baiting. In the case of Trump's taxes it's to specifically refute and to show his followers that he's not the business genius he says he is. I guarantee if he was as good as he likes people to think he is he would have trotted them bad boys out right away to say, "See how great as business I am? I have the best business and people love my business."

As it stands he's most likely lying about that as well. Like he does pretty much everything else.

Aug 2, 2016#309

Bubble181

Yeah, I have to say, there's a difference. Though there are comparisons - it's partly a witch hunt - tax returns actually contain, you know, useful information.
OTOH, I don't see how releasing them might help him, other than PR wise.
If he's got low income: he's not as big a businessman as he claims to be.
High income: he's a rich man who doesn't understand normal people (admittedly, we already know that)
Low taxes: see, he doesn't pay anything himself
High taxes: he's a bad businessman

Aug 2, 2016#310

DarkAudit

Dave said:
I disagree. I the case of the birthers it was nothing but race-baiting. In the case of Trump's taxes it's to specifically refute and to show his followers that he's not the business genius he says he is. I guarantee if he was as good as he likes people to think he is he would have trotted them bad boys out right away to say, "See how great as business I am? I have the best business and people love my business."

As it stands he's most likely lying about that as well. Like he does pretty much everything else.

Like that $3 return on investment he got his backers for the USFL?

Aug 2, 2016#311

strawman

So it's about lying and trustworthiness. And for the birthers it was about whether Obama was constitutionally eligible for presidency.

You're right that they aren't the same.

Aug 2, 2016#312

DarkAudit

Bubble181 said:
Yeah, I have to say, there's a difference. Though there are comparisons - it's partly a witch hunt - tax returns actually contain, you know, useful information.
OTOH, I don't see how releasing them might help him, other than PR wise.
If he's got low income: he's not as big a businessman as he claims to be.
High income: he's a rich man who doesn't understand normal people (admittedly, we already know that)
Low taxes: see, he doesn't pay anything himself
High taxes: he's a bad businessman

A tax break he shouldn't have qualified for: felony tax evasion

Aug 2, 2016#313

Gruebeard

stienman said:
So it's about lying and trustworthiness. And for the birthers it was about whether Obama was constitutionally eligible for presidency.

You're right that they aren't the same.

But didn't Obama have to provide proof of eligibility to some sort of electoral committee before ever being placed on a ballot? Or at least before taking office?

Or is your system so fucked up that I actually could become President of the United States of America? (Oh man, if so, singing Megadeth's Peace Sells will be just a little more fun since I won't feel compelled to mutter that line because I feel silly saying it)

Aug 2, 2016#314

Dave

stienman said:
So it's about lying and trustworthiness. And for the birthers it was about whether Obama was constitutionally eligible for presidency.

You're right that they aren't the same.

But the birthers were crazy people from the start. everyone - including the high-profile members of their own party - acknowledged that Obama was born in the US. The birthers were about race and that's all there was to it. Saying anything else is bullshit. These are the same people who didn't give two shits about McCain being born in Panama or Ted Cruz being born in Canada. They are both eligible because of their parents, but so was Obama. Even if he HAD been born in Kenya he'd have been an American citizen and able to run for President. The whole thing was racially motivated.

Obama being elected didn't solve racism in the US, it showed us all how much there really was. Just like Hillary will show us how much misogyny there is. Which is too bad because there's so many legitimate reasons to hate her.

Aug 2, 2016#315

Tress

stienman said:
So it's about lying and trustworthiness. And for the birthers it was about whether Obama was constitutionally eligible for presidency.

You're right that they aren't the same.

I think it's important for all candidates to disclose their sources of income, as they might indicate conflicts of interest. Is that not a valid reason?

Aug 2, 2016#316

Shakey

Gruebeard said:
But didn't Obama have to provide proof of eligibility to some sort of electoral committee before ever being placed on a ballot? Or at least before taking office?

Or is your system so fucked up that I actually could become President of the United States of America? (Oh man, if so, singing Megadeth's Peace Sells will be just a little more fun since I won't feel compelled to mutter that line because I feel silly saying it)

He did, and it was released to the public, but it wasn't enough. It needed to be the long form, and backed up by newspaper announcements, which were released,but it wasn't enough. It will never be enough for people these people, because they don't really want proof.

Aug 2, 2016#317

sixpackshaker

DarkAudit said:
Like that $3 return on investment he got his backers for the USFL?

That is the main reason I hated him for over 30 years. He destroyed a fun football league.

Aug 2, 2016#318

Dave

Don't you remember Trump said he was going to shock the world with what they found out about Obama's birth certificate? What ever happened with that? Oh yeah. It was more bullshit that Trump couldn't back up. Just like everything else. It's an expensive suit, but it's an empty one.

Aug 2, 2016#319

DarkAudit

Dave said:
It's an expensive suit

Made in China.

Aug 2, 2016#320

PatrThom

Tress said:
I think it's important for all candidates to disclose their sources of income, as they might indicate conflicts of interest. Is that not a valid reason?

Yeah, if only.

--Patrick

Aug 2, 2016#321

strawman

Tress said:
I think it's important for all candidates to disclose their sources of income, as they might indicate conflicts of interest. Is that not a valid reason?

It's a good thing they should do, and I hope people don't conflate my posts to be suggesting that he shouldn't, or that the birthers had any validity to their argument. I'm simply arguing that comparing the two is silly. One is a constitutional requirement, the other is something the public demands, but isn't necessary in the least bit.

Furthermore, it's quite easy to sanitize your tax returns - even past tax returns - by filing amendments as needed, and forming corporations, trusts, and so forth to essentially hide income, benefits, and property to the degree where a tax return isn't as useful as the public currently might think it is.[DOUBLEPOST=1470160450,1470160367][/DOUBLEPOST]Besides, a tax return says little to nothing about where the money comes from. "Clinton Foundation", if that's what's on Hillary's tax return, is useless in terms of determining conflicts of interest.

Aug 2, 2016#322

Null

Tress said:
I think it's important for all candidates to disclose their sources of income, as they might indicate conflicts of interest. Is that not a valid reason?

Isn't that literally the reason why they do it? To show transparency to the American public? It's not legally required but the vast majority of candidates do release their tax returns. This was an issue with Mittens in 2012 as well.

Trump won't release his tax returns because his net worth is nowhere near what he says it is - he even testified in court, in a lawsuit he filed against an author who claimed that Trump is worth far less than $1 billion, much less the $10 billion he claims, that "my net worth fluctuates on a daily basis, depending on how I feel." Trump, by the way, lost that lawsuit.

Trump is running on the basis that his business acumen qualifies him to lead the nation. Since his net worth is unverified, and he has an extensive history of fraud, bankruptcy, and not paying for things, having an objective look at his finances is necessary to prove that quality.

Aug 2, 2016#323

Null

Holy shit, can this actually be true? Trump literally had a baby removed from his rally in Virginia.

Did no one tell him it's "kiss babies and shake hands", not "shake babies and kiss hands"?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-kicks-out-baby-rally-226566

Aug 2, 2016#324

Dave

For the lazy:

“Don’t worry about that baby. I love babies," Drumpf said after hearing the baby crying during an aside about the trade imbalance. "Don’t worry about it. I love babies. I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don’t worry, don’t worry. The mom’s running around like—don’t worry about it, you know. It’s young and beautiful and healthy and that’s what we want.”

Drumpf then returned to his non-baby-related remarks, only to hear the baby make more noise.

“They have ripped us to shreds, ripped us absolutely to shreds," Drumpf said of China, before turning back to the woman with the child.

“Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here," the Republican nominee said to laughter and applause. "That’s all right. Don’t worry. I, I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s OK. People don’t understand. That’s OK."

Aug 2, 2016#325

GasBandit

Man, that sounds so New York it hurts.

Aug 2, 2016#326

Null

I mean, at least he didn't have the baby brought forward to be thrown into a fire pit.

He's saving that for his second term.

Aug 2, 2016#327

Null

And now Trump's "military advisor" and smear campaign maestro Roger Stone Jr is using twitter to spread a conspiracy theory from an anti-Muslim website that the bereaved Khans are terrorists, members of the Muslim Brotherhood who have infiltrated the United States to spread Shiara Law.

Aug 2, 2016#328

Terrik

Aug 2, 2016#329

Null

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/watch-donald-trump-throw-crying-baby-out-of-rally-w432269

Video of Trump ordering the baby to be removed from his rally.

Aug 2, 2016#330

MindDetective

Aug 2, 2016#331

Cajungal

Contrast with all the adorable pictures of Obama with kids and babies out there...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Aug 2, 2016#332

GasBandit

Cajungal said:
Contrast with all the adorable pictures of Obama with kids and babies out there...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

But he's not alone...

Aug 2, 2016#333

Cajungal

P'hahaha, well you're gonna get those too...with anyone. But at least they're not kicking it or trying to eat it for crying.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Aug 2, 2016#334

Null

And now there's this: http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08...manager-for-being-on-russian-payroll-details/

On Monday, the New York Times exposed the history of Paul Manafort, top Trump adviser and campaign manager. Manafort was installed late in the primary season and made one of his first marks the assertion that Trump’s wildly divisive campaign rhetoric was only a show, one which the candidate would soon conclude.
Trump, of course, continues to ride racism and bigotry to the polls in November, having never stopped his rhetoric, only adding to the increasingly worrisome nonsense he spews and standing by what he has said in the past. He isn’t looking at a good chance of a win, with his hatred for everyone who isn’t a rich white Republican having driven the GOP and its poll numbers into the ground.
According to the Times, Manafort was an instrumental figure in the inner circle of recently ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
While Manafort worked as a political consultant for Yanukovych, the Ukranian people rose up in protest against Yanukovych’s government, and he fled the country in fear. He found refuge in Russia, a nation which he — and Manafort –– had long been allied with.
The day after he fled the Ukraine marks the beginning of the war carried out by Russian forces against the nation, a war resulting in the Russians claiming to have annexed the Crimean peninsula, adding it to the Russian territory.
During all of these events, leading to untold numbers of violent deaths among noncombatant Ukrainian civilians, Manafort continued to work on behalf of the pro-Russia and pro-Putin forces inside the Ukraine. He helped lead the efforts to oppose the government that arose in place of Yanukovych, a government aligned with the United States and against Russia.

Aug 2, 2016#335

Gruebeard

Null said:
And now there's this: http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08...manager-for-being-on-russian-payroll-details/

On Monday, the New York Times exposed . . .

Click to expand...

So. Back on Canada Day, I was reading an article on alternet. A couple years ago, somebody told me it was a good source for the truth they ain't telling us. I checked it out, but didn't see what he told me I'd see. Every once in a while I get bored, so I check it out to see if I can find that truth they ain't telling us.

Like I was doing back on Canada Day. There was an article that interested me, about Canada accepting Syrian refugees. It started out much like the one above. "The New York Times investigated . . ." or some such opening. It went on to talk about the stories of a couple refugees, as reported by the New York Times. It gave the words of our Immigration Minister, as quoted in the New York Times. And it dawned on me.

Why the fuck don't I just read the New York Times?

Aug 3, 2016#336

Null

Gruebeard said:
So. Back on Canada Day, I was reading an article on alternet. A couple years ago, somebody told me it was a good source for the truth they ain't telling us. I checked it out, but didn't see what he told me I'd see. Every once in a while I get bored, so I check it out to see if I can find that truth they ain't telling us.

Like I was doing back on Canada Day. There was an article that interested me, about Canada accepting Syrian refugees. It started out much like the one above. "The New York Times investigated . . ." or some such opening. It went on to talk about the stories of a couple refugees, as reported by the New York Times. It gave the words of our Immigration Minister, as quoted in the New York Times. And it dawned on me.

Why the fuck don't I just read the New York Times?

Well, if you're not a subscriber, they don't let you read most of their articles, especially backdated, so getting the information from another site is often a more viable option.

Aug 3, 2016#337

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
At this point, I'm not sure all of us would consider it to be a bad thing if the capitol burned to the ground. Preferably with as many congressmen and senators still inside as possible.

there's a lot going on in this thread, but please don't include me even indirectly when you fantasize about murdering everyone in the federal legislature. People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this. what the fuck is wrong with you?

Aug 3, 2016#338

Denbrought

Charlie Don't Surf said:
there's a lot going on in this thread, but please don't include me even indirectly when you fantasize about murdering everyone in the federal legislature. People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this. what the fuck is wrong with you?

Your willingness to misinterpret others in order to fit your narrative is symptomatic of your unchecked American privilege. Please fix that.

Also, here are your crayons:

Aug 3, 2016#339

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
there's a lot going on in this thread, but please don't include me even indirectly when you fantasize about murdering everyone in the federal legislature. People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this. what the fuck is wrong with you?

I don't see where I even obliquely referenced you in this regard. Everything's not about you, shitlord.

Aug 3, 2016#340

Tress

GasBandit said:
I don't see where I even obliquely referenced you in this regard. Everything's not about you, shitlord.

He's implying that you have put every single person on this forum in danger by merely joking that would like to see DC burn to the ground. Because federal law enforcement doesn't have enough to do at the moment, so the troll forums with conparatively small communities to bust anyone making obviously joking or satirical comments.

Aug 3, 2016#341

GasBandit

Tress said:
He's implying that you have put every single person on this forum in danger by merely joking that would like to see DC burn to the ground. Because federal law enforcement doesn't have enough to do at the moment, so the troll forums with conparatively small communities to bust anyone making obviously joking or satirical comments.

Charlie is the ringleader of my terrorist cell, Mr. Comey!

Aug 3, 2016#342

Eriol

GasBandit said:
Charlie is the ringleader of my terrorist cell, Mr. Comey!

For whatever reason, this made the statement "Charlie is like the Trump of Halforums, but liberal" pop into my head.

Maybe true or not, but it made me laugh.

Aug 3, 2016#343

Gruebeard

I so want to create an alt, but I'm too lazy.

But yeah, I'd have the alt ramble on and on about Mars and the International Space Station, but get details oh so wrong, all while asking probing questions about Gassy's relationship with Chuck. And that sneaky Spaniard looking to commit voter fraud.

Aug 3, 2016#344

Dave

Ken "Gruebeard" M.

Aug 3, 2016#345

Null

I was going to post a link to a story from MSNBC's Morning Joe, in which Joe Scarborough relates a story where he was meeting with a carefully unnamed foreign policy expert who had been hired to brief Drumpf on foreign policy. Joe said that this expert was asked by Drumpf, three times in an hour briefing, "If the United States has nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"

While I absolutely believe that's possible, there's no real source or verification here. And that's not journalism, that's just rumor-mongering. It's the same as Fox News' bullshit "Some people say..." preface to a baldfaced lie.

Aug 3, 2016#346

Gruebeard

Null said:
"If the United States has nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"

Well, see, we could use them, but the system that launches them, that case we carry around for you, we call it a football. And you're Tony Romo.

That is, when the shit's really on the line, if we give you the ball we're just fucking ourselves over.

Paid for by the committee to elect (a young) Tom Brady

Aug 3, 2016#347

Null

Gruebeard said:
Well, see, we could use them, but the system that launches them, that case we carry around for you, we call it a football. And you're Tony Romo.

That is, when the shit's really on the line, if we give you the ball we're just fucking ourselves over.

Paid for by the committee to elect (a young) Tom Brady

You know Tom Brady's a Trump supporter, right?

Aug 3, 2016#348

Gruebeard

Null said:
You know Tom Brady's a Trump supporter, right?

I try to forget that. But yeah. That's why I chose him.

. . . Please don't ask me to explain the logic.

Aug 3, 2016#349

Covar

Null said:
I was going to post a link to a story from MSNBC's Morning Joe, in which Joe Scarborough relates a story where he was meeting with a carefully unnamed foreign policy expert who had been hired to brief Drumpf on foreign policy. Joe said that this expert was asked by Drumpf, three times in an hour briefing, "If the United States has nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"

While I absolutely believe that's possible, there's no real source or verification here. And that's not journalism, that's just rumor-mongering. It's the same as Fox News' bullshit "Some people say..." preface to a baldfaced lie.

So why are you rumor-mongering this yourself?

Aug 3, 2016#350

Null

Covar said:
So why are you rumor-mongering this yourself?

Because I was using the story to make a point about the sorry state of journalism in this election cycle, and to point out that while it is entirely in-character with Drumpf's behavior, there's no verification so you shouldn't automatically believe it.

Aug 3, 2016#351

NSA

Charlie Don't Surf said:
People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this.

Please. The FBI is too busy not recommending charges to even bother asking us for the 30k emails 'lost'. They won't even spend intern time on this type of internet message.

Aug 3, 2016#352

Necronic

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Hillary is the only candidate that believes that vaccines are safe....[DOUBLEPOST=1470254107,1470253903][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
Ken "Gruebeard" M.

If only we could do something about those meatballs in Washington.

Aug 3, 2016#353

Null

Necronic said:
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Hillary is the only candidate that believes that vaccines are safe....

Sort of. I mentioned that Jill Stein, despite being a medical doctor, uses anti-vax language in her statements on vaccines (ie "people are right to have concerns about them") while not committing to pro or anti vaccination positions. Theoretically, she's not anti-vaccine, but she wants part of the Anti-vaxx vote.

Aug 3, 2016#354

Hailey Knight

Necronic said:
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Hillary is the only candidate that believes that vaccines are safe....

This should not even be an issue, politically or elsewhere.

Aug 3, 2016#355

Charlie Don't Surf

Zero Esc said:
This should not even be an issue, politically or elsewhere.

nothing matters. Trump also doesn't believe in global warming. facts don't matter.

Aug 3, 2016#356

Null

Zero Esc said:
This should not even be an issue, politically or elsewhere.

And yet it is.

Aug 3, 2016#357

Charlie Don't Surf

also way backing up - it's the part where he said "I'm not sure all of us" would be against mass murder / assassinations. if he just said "I want to kill all of congress", I would just shrug and forward the post to the FBI

Aug 3, 2016#358

Denbrought

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also way backing up - it's the part where he said "I'm not sure all of us" would be against mass murder / assassinations. if he just said "I want to kill all of congress", I would just shrug and forward the post to the FBI

The reason you're so worried about the government misinterpreting GB's post is because you're the type of person that reports it.

This is delicious.

Aug 3, 2016#359

Gruebeard

Okay, now I want to create a CSIS alt, and bicker with @NSA, but again, I'm too lazy to bother.[DOUBLEPOST=1470285659,1470285475][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also way backing up - it's the part where he said "I'm not sure all of us" would be against mass murder / assassinations. if he just said "I want to kill all of congress", I would just shrug and forward the post to the FBI

I vote for Gassy to admin-edit your post to just the bit in quotes, and then forward it to the FBI.

Aug 3, 2016#360

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also way backing up - it's the part where he said "I'm not sure all of us" would be against mass murder / assassinations. if he just said "I want to kill all of congress", I would just shrug and forward the post to the FBI

Then gone on to shine your jackboots and practice your SIEG HEIL, right?

Aug 3, 2016#361

Charlie Don't Surf

can you not tell the difference between "I want to violently murder everyone in Congress" and "I think they should all be voted out of office" ?

Aug 3, 2016#362

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
can you not tell the difference between "I want to violently murder everyone in Congress" and "I think they should all be voted out of office" ?

Snitches get stitches.

Aug 4, 2016#363

DarkAudit

And back to the original post that started this latest death spiral. I meant "incident of suspicious origin that tends to scapegoat an innocent group and propel the actual culprits into power," and not literally burning down the Capitol.

Aug 4, 2016#364

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
And back to the original post that started this latest death spiral. I meant "incident of suspicious origin that tends to scapegoat an innocent group and propel the actual culprits into power," and not literally burning down the Capitol.

Sure you say that now, now that @FBI and @NSA are involved.[DOUBLEPOST=1470287649,1470287493][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh my. @FBI actually is here.

I'm wondering now if some point in the past I wasn't so lazy. Let's see:
@CSIS[DOUBLEPOST=1470287901][/DOUBLEPOST]@RCMP[DOUBLEPOST=1470287989][/DOUBLEPOST]@Staatsveiligheid[DOUBLEPOST=1470288038][/DOUBLEPOST]@Mossad[DOUBLEPOST=1470288084][/DOUBLEPOST]@FSB[DOUBLEPOST=1470288115][/DOUBLEPOST]@MI5[DOUBLEPOST=1470288148][/DOUBLEPOST]@CIA[DOUBLEPOST=1470288343][/DOUBLEPOST]If nothing else, I've assured there's at least one intelligence agent somewhere in the world watching us. Probably some Bishop from the Corps of Gendarmerie.

Aug 4, 2016#365

Null

Those are the ones that speak Romansh, right?

Aug 4, 2016#366

Eriol

As paraphrased from The Kingsmen, how is it that China's intelligence agency is secret enough that it doesn't have an easily recognizable acronym? Maybe they're doing their job the best?

Aug 4, 2016#367

Frank

I honestly cannot believe that Trump's spokespeople are continuing to attack the Khans. There can't be anyone that thinks that's a good idea can there?

Aug 4, 2016#368

DarkAudit

Frank said:
I honestly cannot believe that Trump's spokespeople are continuing to attack the Khans. There can't be anyone that thinks that's a good idea can there?

Just one. And he's paying their salary.

It's crap like this that justifies my doubting the integrity and/or sanity of those who support Trump without Hillary ever entering the equation. You just don't go after a Gold Star Family like that.

Aug 4, 2016#369

Dave

I just love how Trump's people are going on talk shows blaming Obama for Khan's death when Khan died in 2004. These are the same types of people who blame Obama for the Katrina debacle.

Aug 4, 2016#370

Sara_2814

Dave said:
I just love how Trump's people are going on talk shows blaming Obama for Khan's death when Khan died in 2004. These are the same types of people who blame Obama for the Katrina debacle.

Well he does have a time machine. Remember how he went back in time and put his (fake) birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper?

Aug 4, 2016#371

SpecialKO

Eriol said:
As paraphrased from The Kingsmen, how is it that China's intelligence agency is secret enough that it doesn't have an easily recognizable acronym? Maybe they're doing their job the best?

It's not particularly secret, it's just incredibly generic sounding when translated.

Aug 4, 2016#372

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
As paraphrased from The Kingsmen, how is it that China's intelligence agency is secret enough that it doesn't have an easily recognizable acronym? Maybe they're doing their job the best?

I've heard it said that back during the Cold War, the USSR thought exceptionally highly of Canada's spies because they're never been able to discover any trace of them.

Aug 4, 2016#373

DarkAudit

In this hour's "now what?" It turns out Melania Trump may in fact be... an illegal immigrant. Working on a tourist visa that itself may have been obtained under false pretenses.

Aug 4, 2016#374

Eriol

SpecialKO said:
It's not particularly secret, it's just incredibly generic sounding when translated.

Their point in the movie wasn't that it was secret secret, just that everybody in the WORLD knows the agencies mentioned above, but nobody has such an acronym widely recognized for China's intelligence agency.

Gruebeard said:
I've heard it said that back during the Cold War, the USSR thought exceptionally highly of Canada's spies because they're never been able to discover any trace of them.

I laughed.

Aug 4, 2016#375

SpecialKO

Eriol said:
Their point in the movie wasn't that it was secret secret, just that everybody in the WORLD knows the agencies mentioned above, but nobody has such an acronym widely recognized for China's intelligence agency.

I blame decades of movies that referred to them merely as "the Chinese". Clearly the MSS need to get on it and start a global branding campaign.

"MSS, brought to you by Tencent, Alibaba, and good citizens like you"

Aug 4, 2016#376

Frank

This new GOP is incredible.

Aug 4, 2016#377

Dave

I understand why they did it, though. It has nothing to do with the Constitution but is a dig against Trump a la the Khans.

A better response would have been to have them all take out their copies of the pocket Constitution and hold them up as well. But that would mean (a) that they had a copy, (b) knew how to read, and (c) thought things through.

Aug 4, 2016#378

Necronic

DarkAudit said:
And back to the original post that started this latest death spiral. I meant "incident of suspicious origin that tends to scapegoat an innocent group and propel the actual culprits into power," and not literally burning down the Capitol.

[DOUBLEPOST=1470350415,1470350203][/DOUBLEPOST]

Frank said:
This new GOP is incredible.

What's incredible about a pro-Russian GOP?

Aug 4, 2016#379

DarkAudit

The tumblrinas are making noise now. Saying the questioning of The Donald's sanity is just ableist privilege.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aug 5, 2016#380

Null

DarkAudit said:
The tumblrinas are making noise now. Saying the questioning of The Donald's sanity is just ableist privilege.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aug 5, 2016#381

Frank

Necronic said:
[DOUBLEPOST=1470350415,1470350203][/DOUBLEPOST]

What's incredible about a pro-Russian GOP?

They aren't credible.

Aug 5, 2016#382

Frank

Trump, the working man's billionaire (citation needed), the anti-establishment candidate, the man who won't be beholden to Wall Street, has announced his economic policy team.

Paulson is the founder of investment firm Paulson and Co., and made billions betting against subprime mortgages in 2007 leading up to the financial crisis.

Roth is the billionaire head of Vornado Realty.

Hamm is a billionaire oilman and CEO of Continental Resources.

Lorber is the CEO of tobacco and real estate company Vector Group.

Mnuchin is Trump's national finance chairman, and the chairman and CEO of hedge fund Dune Capital Management.

Barrack served in the Reagan administration as deputy undersecretary of interior, and is founder and chairman of Colony Capital.

Calk is the chairman and CEO of The Federal Savings Bank.

Beal is the billionaire founder and chairman of Beal Bank and Beal Bank USA.

Feinberg is the billionaire co-founder and CEO of Cerberus Capital Management.

Malpass is a former Bear Stearns chief economist who has had high-ranking roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

Navarro is an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Moore is a former member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board and a founder of the Club for Growth.

DiMicco is former CEO of steel company Nucor.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/05/trump-unveils-economic-policy-team-includes-john-paulson.html

Aug 5, 2016#383

Gruebeard

A university professor? Trump's liberal elitism is shining through!

Aug 5, 2016#384

Dave

That's certainly a Who's Who of people who will look out for the interests of the middle class.

Aug 5, 2016#385

Bubble181

Dave said:
That's certainly a Who's Who of people who will look out for the interests of the middle class.

At least I can *really* imagine this team fighting for less restrictions, less government involvement and smaller government andpretty much mean exactly what it says.

This would definitely not be a good thing, but it might make some Republicans and Libertarians happy for a while.

Aug 5, 2016#386

CynicismKills

Gruebeard said:
A university professor? Trump's liberal elitism is shining through!

And from UCI, no less! The madman!

Aug 9, 2016#387

DarkAudit

Trump may have just advocated shooting Hillary or her judicial nominees if she gets elected. Encouraging "second amendment folks" to "do something" if it comes to pass.

Aug 9, 2016#388

Denbrought

Here's the clip, for those who would prefer to watch:

What's the charitable interpretation for this? I'm having a hard time.

Aug 9, 2016#389

GasBandit

He's clearly making what he thinks is a joke. It's not funny and entirely inappropriate for a political candidate, but it's quite a stretch to say he was "advocating" it.

Aug 9, 2016#390

Denbrought

Intent, according to the campaign:

Aug 9, 2016#391

AshburnerX

Tch. Voting from the rooftops, maybe.

Aug 9, 2016#392

Frank

Denbrought said:
Intent, according to the campaign:

Oh man, the gymnastics it takes to get to that bit of reasoning.

He made a shitty joke about murdering Hillary Clinton and/or her court appointees, Jesus.

Aug 9, 2016#393

blotsfan

I hope he makes good money. It can't be easy.

Aug 9, 2016#394

GasBandit

Yeah, there is absolutely no way to interpret that other than "unless somebody shoots her (snort) hee hee."

Not sarcasm, just in case anybody isn't clear.

Aug 9, 2016#395

Cajungal

This is the thing he does that irritates me the most. It's a completely inappropriate thing to say, not because it convinces me he want to encourage violence, but because he thinks this is funny...and an acceptable way for a candidate to behave. But in the end, anyone who's bothered by it risks looking like the "over-sensitive" people who are ruining this country. That is how it's caged by his supporters. All because they don't want a president with an emotional age of 12.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Aug 9, 2016#396

Adam

Although Canadian, we tend to pay a lot of attention to American politics and certain segments of my extended family appear to tacitly support Trump. I've given up being nice about it when explaining my thoughts on him. I was polite at the beginning but it's well past ridiculous now.

Aug 9, 2016#397

ThatGrinningIdiot!

If people found his comment was an endorsement for murdering a political candidate, then they are being too sensitive. Now if anyone finds his comment in poor taste and unbecoming conduct of a presidential candidate then that isn't being sensitive, it's being sensible. Likely the oaf tried to appeal to the militants by inferring use of the 2nd - maneuvering more votes in his favor, and like all his gestures, ended up being a sloppy, ham-fisted one that failed.

Aug 9, 2016#398

BErt

It's less about critics seeing it as an endorsement and more about the danger of a whack-nut supporter of his seeing it as an endorsement. it was more than "in poor taste" it was dangerous and irresponsible. I cannot imagine anything good coming out of this man being in charge of anything.

Aug 9, 2016#399

Zappit

I think most of us remember the crosshairs Sarah Palin put on a congressional map. I think we remember the bullshit excuses she gave after Gabby Giffords, who was one of the "targets", was very nearly assassinated and six other people were murdered by a deranged man. But noooooooo, the crosshairs simply meant they wanted to vote them out, and wasn't a veiled call to violence.

It's horseshit. It's bullshit. And this is, too. Donald Trump damn well knows that it wasn't a joke. His little "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" is a veiled threat. It's meant to encourage the mentally unhinged that support him to take a shot at Clinton. Then, he gets to claim it was a joke, and bears no responsibility for his words. When you look at Trump's pattern of behavior, this is hardly unexpected. He's invited Russia to attack Clinton. He's already claiming the election will be rigged. He lashes out at the slightest criticism and doubles down on his immature and stupid statements all the time. Is anybody really surprised this postulant toad said this today?

Aug 9, 2016#400

strawman

Zappit said:
I think most of us remember the crosshairs Sarah Palin put on a congressional map. I think we remember the bullshit excuses she gave after Gabby Giffords, who was one of the "targets", was very nearly assassinated and six other people were murdered by a deranged man. But noooooooo, the crosshairs simply meant they wanted to vote them out, and wasn't a veiled call to violence.

It's horseshit. It's bullshit. And this is, too. Donald Trump damn well knows that it wasn't a joke. His little "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" is a veiled threat. It's meant to encourage the mentally unhinged that support him to take a shot at Clinton. Then, he gets to claim it was a joke, and bears no responsibility for his words. When you look at Trump's pattern of behavior, this is hardly unexpected. He's invited Russia to attack Clinton. He's already claiming the election will be rigged. He lashes out at the slightest criticism and doubles down on his immature and stupid statements all the time. Is anybody really surprised this postulant toad said this today?

There is no way you can perform he mental gymnastics required to link Giffords shooter to Palins map. He was independent and hated Giffords a long time before plain came on the scene. If anything I'd guess he would have distrusted plain as part of the problematic political machine.

There is simply no connection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

Not to say that we shouldn't call out politicians who use such imagery or make "jokes" suggesting violence towards others, but I don't think you should be spreading this type of rumor as though there's a direct cause and effect.

Aug 9, 2016#401

GasBandit

Zappit said:
I think most of us remember the crosshairs Sarah Palin put on a congressional map. I think we remember the bullshit excuses she gave after Gabby Giffords, who was one of the "targets", was very nearly assassinated and six other people were murdered by a deranged man. But noooooooo, the crosshairs simply meant they wanted to vote them out, and wasn't a veiled call to violence.

It's horseshit. It's bullshit. And this is, too. Donald Trump damn well knows that it wasn't a joke. His little "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" is a veiled threat. It's meant to encourage the mentally unhinged that support him to take a shot at Clinton. Then, he gets to claim it was a joke, and bears no responsibility for his words. When you look at Trump's pattern of behavior, this is hardly unexpected. He's invited Russia to attack Clinton. He's already claiming the election will be rigged. He lashes out at the slightest criticism and doubles down on his immature and stupid statements all the time. Is anybody really surprised this postulant toad said this today?

This is fullblown tinfoil hattery.

Aug 9, 2016#402

ThatGrinningIdiot!

BErt said:
It's less about critics seeing it as an endorsement and more about the danger of a whack-nut supporter of his seeing it as an endorsement. it was more than "in poor taste" it was dangerous and irresponsible. I cannot imagine anything good coming out of this man being in charge of anything.

Whackjobs aren't reasonable, logical, nor entirely predictable. A crazy on Trumps side may well decide to kill him because of whatever insane motive they conjured to do so. Let's say a nutter does carry out an assassination attempt due to his comments, does Trump hold responsibility for that act in any way?

Aug 9, 2016#403

BErt

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
Whackjobs aren't reasonable, logical, nor entirely predictable.

You're right, Donald Trump is none of these things.

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
Let's say a nutter does carry out an assassination attempt due to his comments, does Trump hold responsibility for that act in any way?

Not legally, surely. It's still dangerous and irresponsible. Even if we pretend everyone in the US can just roll their eyes and say "Oh, Donald!" this "joking" and "just saying what he thinks" shit isn't going to fly if he is in charge of diplomacy.

Aug 9, 2016#404

Zappit

GasBandit said:
This is fullblown tinfoil hattery.

Not really. He put the suggestion out there. It took him nearly a day to clarify his Russia statement. He called that a joke, too. He's made "jokes" about protestors getting roughed up at his rallies, and then doesn't condemn the violence that occurs. This "joke" just gets added to the list of veiled suggestions his supporters get violent.

The Giffords thing, that came during a very active, very heated mid-term election that saw some politicians taking the rhetoric completely over the top. Is it any surprise some unhinged individual took it as a call to violence? It happens on both sides, but in this case, Giffords was specifically listed with crosshairs by a prominent anti-government politician. Shortly after, a nut who already had a hate on for a number of Congressmen and Senators went after Giffords and her supporters. Said nut just happened to be emboldened enough to commit murder.

I'm not saying that's the intent when politicians do this shit. I'm saying it's irresponsible, short-sighted demagogues who can't see (or don't care) about the results their overdramatic statements cause. These people want to be leaders, and should have enough sense in their heads to realize that "jokes" that imply committing violent acts could be taken seriously by some of the people they want to lead.

Aug 9, 2016#405

GasBandit

Zappit said:
Not really. He put the suggestion out there.

Mostly I was talking about the Palin-Giffords connection, and yes, he undoubtably said it as a joke, albeit a very poor one.

Aug 10, 2016#406

Dei

Same as above, but from his own mouth. I wonder how long it took his campaign managers to get him to put it on his own Twitter.

Aug 10, 2016#407

GasBandit

It's quite notable, if you ask me, that he is actually defending himself on this instead of shrugging and moving on/changing the subject like he usually has been so far whenever he makes a gaffe. Does it indicate that he's not as teflon as previously thought?

Aug 10, 2016#408

DarkAudit

Maybe someone with enough authority to make it stick finally got it through that he could actually be in deep trouble for what he said. Maybe reminded him that "I was only kidding" is not a valid defense in the US court system.

Aug 10, 2016#409

Frank

GasBandit said:
It's quite notable, if you ask me, that he is actually defending himself on this instead of shrugging and moving on/changing the subject like he usually has been so far whenever he makes a gaffe. Does it indicate that he's not as teflon as previously thought?

Judging by how he's plummeting in most polls, I'd say he isn't teflon at all.

Aug 10, 2016#410

Bubble181

Frank said:
Judging by how he's plummeting in most polls, I'd say he isn't teflon at all.

*dons tinfoil hat* those polls are all liberal media lies to make his supporters think it's a lost cause. In fact, a vast majority of Americans love him and support him.

Aug 10, 2016#411

GasBandit

Frank said:
Judging by how he's plummeting in most polls, I'd say he isn't teflon at all.

Well, he was up until primary week.

Aug 10, 2016#412

Dave

Maybe he got a call from the Secret Service.

Aug 10, 2016#413

strawman

Dave said:
Maybe he got a call from the Secret Service.

Per http://www.secretservice.gov/about/faqs/ :

the Secret Service is authorized by law (18 United States Code § 3056) to protect: Major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election.

So they wouldn't have to call him, they could just have one of their agents lean over and whisper in his ear.

"Dude, not cool."

Aug 10, 2016#414

DarkAudit

stienman said:
Per http://www.secretservice.gov/about/faqs/ :

So they wouldn't have to call him, they could just have one of their agents lean over and whisper in his ear.

"Dude, not cool."

Aug 10, 2016#415

Frank

This is the guy that ghostwrote Art of the Deal.

Aug 10, 2016#416

Null

Frank said:
This is the guy that ghostwrote Art of the Deal.

Didn't that guy also say that a Trump Presidency would mean the end of civilization?

Aug 10, 2016#417

Frank

Null said:
Didn't that guy also say that a Trump Presidency would mean the end of civilization?

I don't think it was him. I went back through a year of posts and didn't see anything like that. Unless you're talking about something other than Twitter. He did spend a year and a half shadowing Trump and has literally nothing nice to say about him.

Aug 10, 2016#418

Dave

You're saying he might be a tad hyperbolic?

Here's what would happen if Trump got elected:

Pence would be the President and Trump would be the figurehead that goes around talking to people and saying how great he is.

Aug 10, 2016#419

Null

Frank said:
I don't think it was him. I went back through a year of posts and didn't see anything like that. Unless you're talking about something other than Twitter. He did spend a year and a half shadowing Trump and has literally nothing nice to say about him.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

“I put lipstick on a pig,” [Schwarz] said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

Aug 10, 2016#420

GasBandit

Well, at least Trump correctly understands that the 2nd amendment is about scaring government officials with the specter of violent death, and not about hunting or home defense.

/grenade

Aug 10, 2016#421

Null

Yay domestic terrorism. :pud:

Aug 10, 2016#422

GasBandit

Null said:
Yay domestic terrorism.

How does the saying go? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? :trolol:

Aug 10, 2016#423

blotsfan

Someone is trying to climb trump tower.

Aug 10, 2016#424

Null

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/tru...ans-brace-for-armed-revolt-not-assassination/

Aug 10, 2016#425

Dave

Well that's much better.

Aug 10, 2016#426

Null

Dave said:
Well that's much better.

"We believe in freedom, so do what we want or we'll start killing people. For freedom. 'Murica!"

Aug 10, 2016#427

GasBandit

Null said:
"We believe in freedom, so do what we want or we'll start killing people. For freedom. 'Murica!"

"We're going to ignore the spirit of the law and the constitution to gain a permanent hold on the government, which we are simultaneously growing as fast as we can so that it becomes part of every facet of your life. And if you object to this, we will ignore or marginalize you, and if you object louder, we'll call you a terrorist. Because that's what America and freedom is all about, really - freedom from responsibility, freedom from the burden of choice, freedom from dissenting viewpoints. Now excuse me while I go masturbate to this picture of Chairman Mao."

Aug 10, 2016#428

Null

GasBandit said:
"We're going to ignore the spirit of the law and the constitution to gain a permanent hold on the government, which we are simultaneously growing as fast as we can so that it becomes part of every facet of your life. And if you object to this, we will ignore or marginalize you, and if you object louder, we'll call you a terrorist. Because that's what America and freedom is all about, really - freedom from responsibility, freedom from the burden of choice, freedom from dissenting viewpoints. Now excuse me while I go masturbate to this picture of Chairman Mao."

Sure, okay. Whatever.

Aug 10, 2016#429

GasBandit

Null said:
Sure, okay. Whatever.

Aug 10, 2016#430

Null

GasBandit said:

Aug 10, 2016#431

GasBandit

Null said:

Aug 10, 2016#432

Charlie Don't Surf

old man shouts at cloud dot jpg

Aug 10, 2016#433

Frank

All it takes is for someone to use the words armed revolt and every libertarian gets an erection.

Aug 10, 2016#434

Eriol

Frank said:
All it takes is for someone to use the words armed revolt and every libertarian gets an erection.

Their country was founded on armed revolt. I'm surprised that (significant) rebellion has only happened once in its history.

Aug 10, 2016#435

GasBandit

Frank said:
armed revolt

[DOUBLEPOST=1470881147,1470881089][/DOUBLEPOST]

Eriol said:
Their country was founded on armed revolt. I'm surprised that (significant) rebellion has only happened once in its history.

Thomas Jefferson, Tree of Liberty, blood of tyrants and patriots, etc.

Aug 10, 2016#436

Dave

Eriol said:
Their country was founded on armed revolt. I'm surprised that (significant) rebellion has only happened once in its history.

They tried one other time. Didn't work out so well.

Aug 11, 2016#437

DarkAudit

I'm about to have a heart attack from not surprised...

Aug 11, 2016#438

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
They tried one other time. Didn't work out so well.

And 150 years later, still pissy about it.

Aug 11, 2016#439

DarkAudit

The latest... you-know-who called Obama and Hillary the founder and co-founder of ISIS. And reasserted the claim when asked if that was what he meant.

Aug 11, 2016#440

Dave

History is not his strong suit.

The group has had various names since it was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (lit. "The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad").[31] When in October 2004 al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden, he renamed the group Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (lit. "The Organisation of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. Although the group never called itself al-Qaeda in Iraq, this remained its informal name for many years.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#cite_note-ctc29May-61

In January 2006, AQI merged with several other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). After al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006, the MSC merged in October 2006 with several more insurgent factions to form a new group, ad-Dawlah al-ʻIraq al-Islāmiyah, which translates as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The ISI was led by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who were killed in a US–Iraqi operation in April 2010, after which Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the group's new leader.

Aug 11, 2016#441

Bubble181

Dave said:
History is not his strong suit.

1999? Oh, so it's under Bill's term they got founded. There you go. Still her fault

Aug 11, 2016#442

Dave

Bubble181 said:
1999? Oh, so it's under Bill's term they got founded. There you go. Still her fault

They started basically as the Popular People's Front of Judea. And then Bush got elected and he didn't take Clinton's advice about al queda and we all know how that went.

Aug 11, 2016#443

DarkAudit

Many people are saying Trump donated to NAMBLA, and that's why he's refusing to release his tax returns.[DOUBLEPOST=1470926396,1470926361][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
They started basically as the Popular People's Front of Judea. And then Bush got elected and he didn't take Clinton's advice about al queda and we all know how that went.

SPLITTER!

Aug 11, 2016#444

Dave

Yeah, this is what we need - less regulation on the environment. Dude is a genius and listens too much to Gas's insane ramblings on the environment.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-vows-pull-us-out-paris-climate-agreement-if-he-elected-2375198

Aug 11, 2016#445

SpecialKO

DarkAudit said:
SPLITTER!

...considering what we actually see of the Judean People's Front in that movie, that analogy is all of a sudden not as funny. :confused:

Aug 11, 2016#446

GasBandit

Dave said:
Yeah, this is what we need - less regulation on the environment. Dude is a genius and listens too much to Gas's insane ramblings on the environment.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-vows-pull-us-out-paris-climate-agreement-if-he-elected-2375198

Well, that article is from May, so I highly doubt my recent comments played much part in Trump's speech there

But yeah, "global warming treaties" are really just the latest favorite tool for watermelon environmentalists to throw sand in the gears of capitalist economies.

It's a pity Trump can't be trusted to mean anything he says. Well, not so much a pity, because it's unlikely he'll win at this point, so it's kinda moot.

Aug 11, 2016#447

Dave

It is from March, isn't it? Well then. He's probably changed his mind on that by now. He's nothing if not inconsistent.

Aug 11, 2016#448

GasBandit

Dave said:
It is from March, isn't it?

GasBandit said:
Well, that article is from May, so...

... you get enough sleep last night, man?

Aug 11, 2016#449

Dave

Damn it. Again, multitasking. Poorly. Trying to comment in two places, work, and read some documentation.

I should focus.

Aug 11, 2016#450

Zappit

I'm starting to think it's got to be that Trump just really doesn't want to be president. He probably started a run as an ego trip with him thinking it would last a month, and it all just spiraled out of control. Now he's in "oh, shit" mode, and is trying to lose because he knows how hopelessly unprepared he is for the presidency.

Or he's got dementia.

Aug 11, 2016#451

Gruebeard

Dave said:
Damn it. Again, multitasking. Poorly. Trying to comment in two places, work, and read some documentation.

I should focus.

Well, so long as you're making those mistakes here. We can't fire you.[DOUBLEPOST=1470936580,1470936458][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zappit said:
I'm starting to think it's got to be that Trump just really doesn't want to be president.

Well no he doesn't. He's got plans to circumnavigate the globe in a hot air balloon next year.

Aug 11, 2016#452

Dave

Gruebeard said:
Well, so long as you're making those mistakes here. We can't fire you.

You sure about that? All the mods that have access to the mod area have all my passwords in case things go tits-up or I get hit by a bus. It would be super easy for someone to lock me out. They'd just have to pay the $25 a month to keep us going.

If I died tomorrow this place could continue on unencumbered.

Aug 11, 2016#453

Ravenpoe

Zappit said:
I'm starting to think it's got to be that Trump just really doesn't want to be president. He probably started a run as an ego trip with him thinking it would last a month, and it all just spiraled out of control. Now he's in "oh, shit" mode, and is trying to lose because he knows how hopelessly unprepared he is for the presidency.

Or he's got dementia.

My bet is he's involved in some sort of whacky Brewster's Millions plot, and his campaign success is a continued detriment to it.

Aug 11, 2016#454

Gruebeard

Dave said:
If I died tomorrow this place could continue on unencumbered.

Dude. This place would be so heavily encumbered. Our movement speed would be down to 0, like adventurers looting a dragon's lair. Only, it wouldn't be +5 swords and suits of adamantine weighing us down.

it'd be grief

Aug 11, 2016#455

GasBandit

Zappit said:
I'm starting to think it's got to be that Trump just really doesn't want to be president. He probably started a run as an ego trip with him thinking it would last a month, and it all just spiraled out of control. Now he's in "oh, shit" mode, and is trying to lose because he knows how hopelessly unprepared he is for the presidency.

Or he's got dementia.

Many people during the primaries pointed out he was a democrat until 10 years ago, and best buds with the Clintons in the 90s, asserting his entire candidacy was a giant false flag operation designed to deliver the election to Hillary.

Aug 11, 2016#456

Dave

GasBandit said:
Many people during the primaries pointed out he was a democrat until 10 years ago, and best buds with the Clintons in the 90s, asserting his entire candidacy was a giant false flag operation designed to deliver the election to Hillary.

I'd certainly believe that conspiracy theory if Donald were able to keep his mouth shut. As it stands, I don't see him doing this.

Aug 11, 2016#457

Gruebeard

Dave said:
I'd certainly believe that conspiracy theory if Donald were able to keep his mouth shut. As it stands, I don't see him doing this.

Or if he wasn't calling for Hillary's assassination.

Aug 11, 2016#458

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Or if he wasn't calling for Hillary's assassination.

Can you think of many more effective ways to tank your poll numbers?

Aug 11, 2016#459

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Can you think of many more effective ways to tank your poll numbers?

Calling for Hillary's deification.

Aug 11, 2016#460

Terrik

Bubble181 said:
Calling for Hillary's deification.

I kinda thought it that said something else at first. As it stands, the results would probably be the same.

Aug 11, 2016#461

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Can you think of many more effective ways to tank your poll numbers?

What @Bubble181 said.

. . . Although its really just as likely to get his friend Hillary martyred.

And though my tagging's not gonna work, I don't have time to play that stupid game where I post 5 variations on Bubble. Just pretend I did it.

Aug 11, 2016#462

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
Can you think of many more effective ways to tank your poll numbers?

No body knows how to tank his #s. Hell his numbers actually went up this week.

Aug 11, 2016#463

Zappit

GasBandit said:
Many people during the primaries pointed out he was a democrat until 10 years ago, and best buds with the Clintons in the 90s, asserting his entire candidacy was a giant false flag operation designed to deliver the election to Hillary.

Now THAT'S full tin-foil hattery.

Aug 11, 2016#464

Adam

sixpackshaker said:
No body knows how to tank his #s. Hell his numbers actually went up this week.

They literally couldn't get any lower. I think 538 had him at 91% chance of losing the election. That's not leaving far to fall.

Aug 11, 2016#465

PatrThom

Zappit said:
Or he's got dementia.

Wouldn't be our first time.

--Patrick

Aug 11, 2016#466

Dave

Aug 11, 2016#467

Null

So, there's this:

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08...ulls-gun-threatens-to-shoot-staffers-kneecap/

"Vincent Bordini, a former staffer from Donald Trump’s North Carolina operation, is suing both the Trump campaign and his former state campaign director, Earl Phillip. Bordini alleges that Phillip threatened him and his fellow staff members with a gun, and no one did anything about it."

Aug 11, 2016#468

Frank

Null said:
So, there's this:

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08...ulls-gun-threatens-to-shoot-staffers-kneecap/

"Vincent Bordini, a former staffer from Donald Trump’s North Carolina operation, is suing both the Trump campaign and his former state campaign director, Earl Phillip. Bordini alleges that Phillip threatened him and his fellow staff members with a gun, and no one did anything about it."

Those are his second amendment rights.

Aug 11, 2016#469

Null

Frank said:
Those are his second amendment rights.

Especially in a state with "Stand your ground" laws.

Aug 11, 2016#470

chris

Man, this new season of "Alpha House" gets better and better [emoji6]

Gesendet von meinem BIRDY mit Tapatalk

Aug 11, 2016#471

GasBandit

Frank said:
Those are his second amendment rights.

No, they aren't.

Null said:
Especially in a state with "Stand your ground" laws.

No, they aren't.

Aug 11, 2016#472

Null

No worries, I'm sure he was "just joking". I mean, isn't taking a loaded gun and pointing it at another person while yelling at them just the kookiest prank? :pud:

Aug 11, 2016#473

Frank

Null said:
Especially in a state with "Stand your ground" laws.

Especially if any of those staffers were black (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha) and he was white.

Aug 11, 2016#474

GasBandit

Just make sure you guys mop up all the spooge when you're done with your circlejerk, kay?

Aug 11, 2016#475

Frank

GasBandit said:
Just make sure you guys mop up all the spooge when you're done with your circlejerk, kay?

Ok kettle.

Aug 11, 2016#476

GasBandit

Frank said:
Ok kettle.

You do realize that, in that metaphor, the kettle is the one being unjustly criticized, and it is the pot (who addresses the kettle) that is the hypocrite?

Aug 11, 2016#477

Frank

GasBandit said:
You do realize that, in that metaphor, the kettle is the one being unjustly criticized, and it is the pot (who addresses the kettle) that is the hypocrite?

Aug 11, 2016#478

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
You do realize that, in that metaphor, the kettle is the one being unjustly criticized, and it is the pot (who addresses the kettle) that is the hypocrite?

Also they are in reality both black.

--Patrick

Aug 11, 2016#479

Null

Hey, it's not real freedom if you can't threaten a coworker with a gun for vague reasons without getting in trouble, ya damn socialists.

Aug 11, 2016#480

GasBandit

Aug 11, 2016#481

PatrThom

GasBandit said:

I really just think he's criticizing you for not letting other people have their own circlejerk regarding a subject you disagree with.

--Patrick

Aug 11, 2016#482

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
I really just think he's criticizing you for not letting other people have their own circlejerk regarding a subject you disagree with.

--Patrick

It's not a circle-jerk if I'm by myself. Can't have a single week go by, though, without the same half dozen people all bouncing smarm against each other until they have to change pants.

Aug 11, 2016#483

Null

GasBandit said:
It's not a circle-jerk if I'm by myself. Can't have a single week go by, though, without the same half dozen people all bouncing smarm against each other until they have to change pants.

Aug 11, 2016#484

Frank

GasBandit said:
It's not a circle-jerk if I'm by myself. Can't have a single week go by, though, without the same half dozen people all bouncing smarm against each other until they have to change pants.

I feel for you.

Aug 11, 2016#485

PatrThom

Frank said:
I feel for you.

No, no. You have to post the actual video like @Null did.

--Patrick

Aug 11, 2016#486

strawman

Am I doing this right?

Aug 11, 2016#487

Dei

Aug 11, 2016#488

Frank

His whole roll of those are incredible. Go Billy West.

Aug 11, 2016#489

blotsfan

That is amazing.

Aug 11, 2016#490

Dei

Like Frank said, there's more if you go to his Twitter.

Aug 11, 2016#491

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Just make sure you guys mop up all the spooge when you're done with your circlejerk, kay?

I have to be honest I'm definitely going to be chafing pretty hard if Teump keeps this shit up much longer

Aug 12, 2016#492

Charlie Don't Surf

the key to Trump and Republicans that I've noticed, is that they jump in and accuse the Democrats/Hillary of the stuff they're ACTUALLY guilty of trying to do.

Aug 12, 2016#493

DarkAudit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
the key to Trump and Republicans that I've noticed, is that they jump in and accuse the Democrats/Hillary of the stuff they're ACTUALLY guilty of trying to do.

If you read the tweets of Tony Schwartz, ghostwriter of Art of the Deal, that is EXACTLY how trump operates. It's pathological.

Aug 12, 2016#494

Dave

Trump: Constitution Schmonstitution.

http://www.wptz.com/politics/trump-fine-with-trying-us-citizens-in-military-courts/41162230

Aug 12, 2016#495

Frank

Only one part of the constitution matters!

Sent from my SM-T110 using Tapatalk

Aug 12, 2016#496

GasBandit

I often wonder if he even understands the meaning of the words he says. I knew you could get far on bluster and bombast, but this is ridiculous.

Aug 12, 2016#497

Dei

Aug 12, 2016#498

strawman

Aug 12, 2016#499

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
I often wonder if he even understands the meaning of the words he says. I knew you could get far on bluster and bombast, but this is ridiculous.

Yeah, I read that and think "I don't think he knows what a military court is"

Aug 12, 2016#500

Dei

Forums